United States, 358 F.3d 1137, 1142 (9th Cir.2004). II. Discussion A. Sovereign Immunity of the Casino Although the Supreme Court has expressed limited enthusiasm for tribal sovereign immunity, the doctrine is firmly ensconced in our law until Congress chooses to modify it. See Kiowa Tribe v. Mfg. Techs., Inc., 523 U.S. 751, 757-60, 118 S.Ct. 1700, 140 L.Ed.2d 981 (1998). This immunity extends to business activities of the tribe, not merely to governmental activities. See id. at 760, 118 S.Ct. 1700; Am. Vantage Cos. v. Table Mountain Rancheria, 292 F.3d 1091, 1100 (9th Cir. 2002). When the tribe establishes an entity to conduct certain activities, the entity is immune if it functions as an arm of the tribe. See, e.g., Marcean v. Blackfeet Hous. Auth., 455 F.3d 974, 978 (9th Cir. 2006) (<HOLDING>); Redding Rancheria v.Super. Ct., 88
holding that blackfeet tribes sovereign immunity extends to blackfeet housing authority recognizing that tribal sovereign immunity extends to agencies and subdivisions of the tribe holding that tribes wholly owned commercial business enjoyed sovereign immunity holding the americans with disabilities act not to abrogate tribal sovereign immunity and declaring congress abrogates tribal immunity only where the definitive language of the statute itself states an intent either to abolish indian tribes common law immunity or to subject tribes to suit under the act holding that the sovereign immunity afforded to tribes extends to their governmental organizations and business entities