The decision included particularly strong language supporting absolute sovereign immunity for tribes to engage in commerce using the Internet. [T]ribal immunity applies to a tribe's governmental and commercial activities alike ... [n]ot only has every federal court of appeals addressing this issue so concluded, but the United States itself has also conceded that a tribe does not lose its immunity simply by engaging in a business through a corporate entity.

Tribal sovereign immunity has faced legal challenges in recent years. In 2011, the US Supreme Court [official website] remanded the case [JURIST report] of Madison County v. Oneida Indian Nation [docket; cert. petition, PDF] to the US Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit [official website], ordering the lower court to reconsider its ruling. The Second Circuit had found that tribal sovereign immunity prevented county authorities from foreclosing on property belonging to the Oneida Indian Nation [official website]. In 2008, the US Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit [official website] ruled that tribal sovereign immunity applies [JURIST report] to lawsuits brought in federal court dealing with the profit-making businesses of Indian tribes. In 2007, the US Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia [official website] upheld [decision, PDF] a 2004 ruling that the National Labor Relations Board (NLRB) [official website] had jurisdiction over tribunal businesses including casinos, placing the tribes under the National Labor Relations Act [text].