of the Act against Winnebago Tribe and the individual plaintiffs. Plaintiffs argue that even if HCI is a “distributor of first receipt” as defined by the Act, defendants are powerless to enforce the Act against them due to tribal and official sovereign immunity. Plaintiff Winnebago Tribe maintains that Indian tribes retain sovereign immunity from suit absent either an explicit waiver of immunity or express authorization of the suit by Congress. See Santa Clara Pueblo v. Martinez, 436 U.S. 49, 98 S.Ct. 1670, 56 L.Ed.2d 106 (1978). This immunity extends to activities off the reservation. See Kiowa Tribe of Oklahoma v. Manufacturing Techs., Inc., 523 U.S. 751, 118 S.Ct. 1700, 140 L.Ed.2d 981 (1998). See also Aircraft Equip. Co. v. Kiowa Tribe of Oklahoma, 975 P.2d 450 (Okla.1998) (<HOLDING>). The individual plaintiffs further argue that
holding that removal to federal court does not waive tribal sovereign immunity holding that seizure of tribal property is barred by sovereign immunity after the supreme courts ruling in manufacturing technologies holding that liability for depreciation would constitute consequential damages barred by sovereign immunity where government did not benefit from property that lost value during seizure period holding inverse condemnation action not barred by sovereign immunity holding that tribal sovereign immunity did not bar rico suit only after concluding that sue and be sued clause in tribal ordinance unequivocally expressed waiver of sovereign immunity