Tribe of the Mescalero Reservation, seeking to compel the State of New Mexico to negotiate in good faith to achieve a compact permitting class III gaming. In deciding that case, the Court noted that “it appears the majority [of cases] supports the view that IGRA waived tribal sovereign immunity in the narrow category of cases where compliance with IGRA’s provisions is at issue and where only declaratory or injunctive relief is sought.” This majority view (that the IGRA waived tribal sovereign immunity only in the narrow category of cases where compliance with IGRA’s provisions is at issue), was mentioned again recently by the Tenth Circuit in Santana v. Muscogee (Creek) Nation, 508 Fed.Appx. 821 (10th Cir.2013) (unpublished order and judgment cited pursuant to 10th Cir. R. 32.1(A) (<HOLDING>)). Santana quoted the above-cited language from
holding that state could not assert sovereign immunity defense where the state had waived immunity in state court and agreed to remove suit to federal court holding that state defendant waived eleventh amendment immunity to a federal claim by removing to federal court holding that removal to federal court does not waive tribal sovereign immunity holding that federal courts do not have jurisdiction to interpret a tribal constitution or tribal laws holding based on oklahoma compact that tribal immunity was not waived for civil tort suits brought in state or federal court