the state treasury. Finally, we analyze whether the suit rises to the level of implicating “special sovereignty interests.” Id. (quoting ANR Pipeline Co., 150 F.3d at 1193). The action here meets this test. It is against state officials for conduct that allegedly violates the rights of the Tribe under the Congressional Act of 1864. It seeks only prospective relief that would not in any way retroactively affect the state treasury. Finally, considering that the state has no sovereign interests over Indian land, or more particularly, no interest in enforcing its gaming laws within sovereign Indian territory, the injunction sought implicates no special sovereignty interests. Compare Idaho v. Coeur d’Alene Tribe of Idaho, 521 U.S. 261, 281-88, 117 S.Ct. 2028, 138 L.Ed.2d 438 (1997) (<HOLDING>); see also Elephant Butte, 160 F.3d at 611-13.
recognizing actions to quiet title are equitable in nature and a court sitting in equity has jurisdiction to quiet title as a remedy for fraud holding that wetlands adjacent to navigable waters are included in the term territorial waters recognizing that navigable waters railroads and highways are channels of commerce which can be regulated under congress commerce powers holding that federal maritime law and not state law applies to all actions for wrongful death in navigable state waters holding action equivalent to quiet title over navigable waters regulated and controlled by state is form of prohibited relief