with a waiver of sovereign immunity. Nor is there anything particularly offensive about requiring a state to accept the TTAB’s decision without further recourse. Other regimes pass constitutional muster where federal court review of agency adjudication is curtailed, and they concern rights at least as precious as a party’s interest in a trademark. In 2010, the Supreme Court reaffirmed that judicial review of the Attorney General’s decision to deport a person from the United States may be limited, see Kucana v. Holder, — U.S. —, 130 S.Ct. 827, 831, 175 L.Ed.2d 694 (2010), and we have recognized in at least two en banc decisions that review of an agency’s entitlement determinations may be foreclosed, see Czerkies v. U.S. Dep’t of Labor, 73 F.3d 1435, 1437-39 (7th Cir.1996) (en banc) (<HOLDING>); Marozsan v. United States, 852 F.2d 1469,
holding that an agencys determination on a workers compensation claim was entitled to deference recognizing that a federal court may not review a challenge to a benefits determination of the office of workers compensation programs in the department of labor holding that the director of the office of workers compensation programs in the us dept of labor lacked standing to challenge a decision by the benefits review board and finding that when an agency in its governmental capacity is meant to have standing congress says so emphasis in original holding that the trial courts authority to initiate workers compensation benefits before the final adjudication was not divested by the legislature and was consistent with the stated purpose of the workers compensation act holding art v  8b does not apply to judgments rendered by the office of workers compensation