tribal sovereignty or striking down a provision in a tribal ordinance somewhat similar to the former subsection 12(1)(b) of the Indian Act in Canada. A provision of the Santa Clara membership code provided that children of a woman who married outside the tribe were denied membership, while membership was extended to children of a male member who married a non-Santa Claran. An action was brought by two women, one a member of the Santa Clara Pueblo who had married a Navajo, and the other, her daughter, who both argued that the membership rule was discriminatory on the basis of both sex and ancestry, contrary to the equal protection clause of the ICRA. The district court concluded that it had jurisdiction as the ICRA implicitly had waived sovereign immunity, but it rejected relief as it felt that membership rules were vital to the tribe?s survival as a cultural and economic entity. The Court of Appeals for the Tenth Circuit reversed, as it believed the tribe?s interest was insufficient in the circumstances to support sexual discrimination. The Supreme Court overturned this latter decision. Justice Thurgood Marshall, speaking for the majority, stated: As separate sovereigns pre-existing the Constitution, tribes have historically been regarded as unconstrained by those constitutional provisions framed specifically as limitations on federal or state authority. He went on to declare: Indian tribes have long been recognized as possessing the common law immunity from suit traditionally enjoyed by sovereign powers.? It is settled that a waiver of sovereign immunity ??Cannot be