Casino, 464 F.3d 1044, 1047 (9th Cir. 2006) (reasoning that a tribe’s statements in an employment application "[a]t most ... might imply a willingness to submit to federal lawsuits, but waivers of tribal sovereign immunity may not be implied”). 8 . C & L Enterprises’s clarification that a tribe need not use any particular words to effect a clear waiver did not alter the settled principle that the waiver must be explicit and cannot be implied. See 532 U.S. at 420, 121 S.Ct. 1589 (rejecting the view that a waiver of tribal immunity “is implicit rather than explicit only if [the] waiver ... use[s] the words 'sovereign immunity' ” (quoting Sokaogon Gaming Enter. Corp. v. Tushie-Montgomery Assocs., Inc., 86 F.3d 656, 659-60 (7th Cir. 1996))); see also Demontiney, 255 F.3d at 812-13 & n.5 (<HOLDING>). 9 . Bodi has not argued that any language in
holding that provisions in a contract established only the tribes willingness to face suit in tribal court and not an explicit waiver of tribal immunily like that in c  l enterprises emphasis added internal quotation marks omitted recognizing that tribes have an interest in a uniform body of federal law in the area of tribal immunity holding that a tribal housing authority established by tribal council pursuant to its powers of selfgovernment was a tribal agency rather than a separate corporate entity created by the tribe holding that federal courts do not have jurisdiction to interpret a tribal constitution or tribal laws holding that disputes involving questions of interpretation of a tribal constitution and tribal law is not within the jurisdiction of the district court