immunity in general. Cf. Alden v. Maine, 527 U.S. 706, 750, 119 S.Ct. 2240, 144 L.Ed.2d 636 (1999) (noting that sovereign immunity protects the financial integrity of States, many of which “could have been forced into insolvency but for their immunity from private suits for money damages”). In light of the purposes for which the Tribe founded this Casino and the Tribe’s ownership and control of its operations, there can be little doubt that the Casino functions as an arm of the Tribe. It accordingly enjoys the Tribe’s immunity from suit. See Ninigret Dev. Corp. v. Narragansett Indian Wetuomuck Hous. Auth., 207 F.3d 21, 29 (1st Cir.2000) (stating that tribal housing authority “as an arm of the Tribe, enjoys the full extent of the Tribe’s sovereign immunity”); Marcean, 455 F.3d at 978 (<HOLDING>). B. Waiver of Immunity The Casino did not
holding that florida does not have jurisdiction in a suit by other persons against an indian tribe absent express waiver of tribal sovereign immunity holding that tribal sovereign immunity did not bar rico suit only after concluding that sue and be sued clause in tribal ordinance unequivocally expressed waiver of sovereign immunity holding agencies of state government are part of the state for purposes of sovereign immunity recognizing that tribal sovereign immunity extends to agencies and subdivisions of the tribe holding that removal to federal court does not waive tribal sovereign immunity