(9th Cir. 1985); accord Cameron v. Bay Mills Indian Community, 843 F.Supp. 334, 336 (W.D.Mich.1994.) Sovereign immunity does not, however, bar actions for prospective relief against individual tribal officials who have allegedly acted outside the scope of their permissible authority. Burlington Northern R.R. v. Blackfeet Tribe of the Blackfeet Indian Reservation, 924 F.2d 899, 901 (9th Cir.1991), cert. denied, — U.S. —, 112 S.Ct. 3013, 120 L.Ed.2d 887 (1992); Davids v. Coyhis, 869 F.Supp. 1401 (E.D.Wis.1994.) A sovereign official’s immunity is removed in this case because the official exercised a power that his or her sovereign was powerless to convey. State of Wisconsin v. Baker, 698 F.2d 1323, 1332-33 (7th Cir.1983), cert. denied, 463 U.S. 1207, 103 S.Ct. 3537, 77 L.Ed.2d 1388 (1983) (<HOLDING>). Thus the individual Community Defendants are
holding that as a matter of federal law an indian tribe is subject to suit only where congress has authorized the suit or the tribe has waived its immunity holding that an official of an indian tribe should be stripped of his authority and corresponding immunity to act on behalf of his tribe whenever he exercises a power his tribe was powerless to convey to him holding that offreservation casino owned and operated by tribe was arm of the tribe and therefore was entitled to sovereign immunity holding that state did not have jurisdiction over tribe where tribe paid into workers compensation program but had not waived sovereign immunity holding that an indian tribe is subject to suit only where congress has authorized the suit or the tribe has waived its immunity