law of sovereign immunity, I recognize that federalism concerns — and even the in terest in protecting the solvency of the States that was at work in Chisholm and Hans — may well justify a grant of immunity from federal litigation in certain classes of cases. Such a grant, however, should be the product of a reasoned decision by the policymaking branch of our Government. For this Court to conclude that timeworn shibboleths iterated and reiterated by judges should take precedence over the deliberations of the Congress of the United States is simply irresponsible. V Fortunately, and somewhat fortuitously, a jurisdictional problem that is unmentioned by the Court may deprive its opinion of precedential significance. The Indian Gaming Regulatory Act establishes a unique set 1995) (<HOLDING>). The conclusion that suits against States may
holding that a state university could be sued in federal court for infringing an authors copyright holding that federal express despite the use of the word federal in its name is not a federal agency and therefore cannot be sued in this court holding that the university of maryland law school was a state agency holding state university is not a person under  1983 holding that neither mere participation in a federal program nor provision requiring compliance with federal law is sufficient to establish that the state consented to be sued in federal court