Apache Tribe, 455 U.S. 130, 148, 102 S.Ct. 894, 71 L.Ed.2d 21 (1982) (employing principles applicable to waiver of federal and state immunity to tribal immunity). The Supreme Court has acknowledged that tribes could use their immunity as a sword rather than a shield, as is alleged here, writing that “immunity can harm those who are unaware that they ai-e dealing with a tribe, who do not know of tribal immunity, or who have no choice in the matter, as in the case of tort victims.” Kiowa Tribe, 523 U.S. at 758, 118 S.Ct. 1700. Despite these concerns with the assertion of immunity, the Court has held fast to its position that such concerns are not the province of the courts, but of Congress or of the tribe itself. Id. at 758-60, 118 S.Ct. 1700; see also Ute Distrib., 149 F.3d at 1267 (<HOLDING>); Pan Am. Co. v. Sycuan Band of Mission
holding that qualified immunity is not merely immunity from damages but also immunity from suit holding that as a general rule interlocutory trial court orders rejecting defenses of common law sovereign immunity governmental immunity public official immunity statutory immunity or any other type of immunity are not appealable under the maryland collateral order doctrine holding that there can be no waiver of tribal immunity based on policy concerns perceived inequities arising from the assertion of immunity or the unique context of a case holding that the tribal defendants removal of the case amounted to a clear and unequivocal waiver of immunity in federal court holding that tribal sovereign immunity did not bar rico suit only after concluding that sue and be sued clause in tribal ordinance unequivocally expressed waiver of sovereign immunity