the Act grandfathered in certain tribes that had licensed their gaming operations to individual Indians, and Congress wanted to ensure that the tribal governments had a means of enjoining any illegal gaming activity conducted by these individuals. We note that such an interpretation is not evident from the plain text of the provision and that the Nation has not provided any specific citation to the legislative history to support its view. Furthermore, regardless of the reason Congress included Indian tribes in this section, courts have applied 25 U.S.C. § 2710(d)(7)(A)(ii) so as to permit a suit brought by a tribe to enjoin class III gaming conducted in violation of a Tribal-State compact. See In re Sac & Fox Tribe of the Miss. in Iowa/Meskwaki Casino Lit., 340 F.3d 749 (8th Cir.2003) (<HOLDING>). 3 . In In re Indian Gaming, the State of
holding that indian tribes lack tribal jurisdiction over crimes committed by nonmember indians within the tribes reservation holding that the tribes elected council had jurisdiction under 25 usc  2710d7aii to bring a suit against the tribes appointed council to enjoin the appointed councils alleged illegitimate operation of a casino under the terms of the tribes compact with the state of iowa holding that an indian tribes exercise of criminal jurisdiction over nonindians is inconsistent with the domesticdependent status of the tribes and that tribes may not assume such jurisdiction without congressional authorization holding that federal legislation with respect to indian tribes  is not based upon impermissible racial classifications and noting that article i  8 of the constitution gives congress the power to regulate commerce  with the indian tribes recognizing sovereign immunity of forprofit corporation formed by a tribe to operate the tribes casino