that the petitioners’ confinement in military custody at Guantanamo Bay, Cuba was immaterial to the question of whether the District Court had subject matter jurisdiction over those claims. Id. at 485, 124 S.Ct. 2686. The Supreme Court in Rasul said nothing about whether Congress waived the United States’ sovereign immunity in the ATS. Here, Plaintiffs confuse federal jurisdiction with a waiver of sovereign immunity. While the Court may have jurisdiction to hear claims under the ATS because the ATS is merely a jurisdictional statute, “any party asserting jurisdiction under the [ATS to sue the United States] must establish, independent of that statute, that the United States has consented to suit.” Tobar v. United States, 639 F.3d 1191, 1196 (9th Cir.2011) (internal quotations omitted) (<HOLDING>). Moreover, if the United States waives its
holding that removal to federal court does not waive tribal sovereign immunity holding that sovereign immunity does not bar extinguishment of united states junior lien in proceeding in which united states was not a party holding that the lanham act did not waive states sovereign immunity holding that the ats does not waive the united states sovereign immunity holding that a state may waive its sovereign immunity