981 (1998). Here, the Compact expressly states that it does not waive the Nation’s tribal sovereign immunity. Plaintiffs claim instead that § 2710(d)(7)(A)(ii) of IGRA abrogates the Nation’s tribal sovereign immunity for their non-Compact claims. Not so. That section provides that “[t]he United States district courts -shall have jurisdiction over .. any cause of action initiated by a State or Indian tribe to enjoin a class III gaming activity located on Indian lands and conducted in violation of any Tribal-State compact. 25 U.S.C. § 2710(d)(7)(A)(ii) (emphasis added). Congress thus abrogated the Nation’s tribal sovereign immunity for claims alleging only violations of the Compact. See Rincon Band of Luiseno Mission Indians v. Schwarzenegger, 602 F.3d 1019, 1028 n. 9 (9,th Cir.2010) (<HOLDING>). The district court correctly found that
holding that disputes involving questions of interpretation of a tribal constitution and tribal law is not within the jurisdiction of the district court holding that acoma tribal law was the law of the place because the tribal court could have jurisdiction over the plaintiffs claim holding that federal courts do not have jurisdiction to interpret a tribal constitution or tribal laws 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 recognizing the canon of construction obligating the court to construe a statute abrogating tribal rights narrowly and most favorably towards tribal interests