stem from the Eleventh Amendment. While there is sparse case law on the issue, it appears the majority supports the view that IGRA waived tribal sovereign immunity in the narrow category of cases where compliance with IGRA’s provisions is at issue and where only declaratory or injunctive relief is sought. See Montgomery v. Flan-dreau Santee Sioux Tribe, 905 F.Supp. 740, 745 (D.S.D.1995) (“The Court has subject matter jurisdiction to consider whether defendants [tribes] have complied with [IGRA].”); Calvello v. Yankton Sioux Tribe, 899 F.Supp. 431, 438 (D.S.D.1995) (“[Federal courts may find a waiver of tribal sovereign immunity for the purpose of enforcing the provisions of the IGRA where prospective injunctive relief, and not monetary relief, is sought.”); Maxam, 829 F.Supp. at 281 (<HOLDING>); Ross v. Flandreau Santee Sioux Tribe, 809
recognizing that udja waives sovereign immunity in suit challenging validity of statute holding that state did not have jurisdiction over tribe where tribe paid into workers compensation program but had not waived sovereign immunity holding that offreservation casino owned and operated by tribe was arm of the tribe and therefore was entitled to sovereign immunity holding that by engaging in gaming tribe waives sovereign immunity for narrow purpose of determining compliance with igra recognizing that tribal sovereign immunity extends to agencies and subdivisions of the tribe