r-6tA•-if 

DA 22-0034

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF MONTANA

2023 MT 62

LUSTRE OIL COMPANY LLC, and

EREHWON OIL & GAS, LLC,

 Plaintiffs and Appellants,

 v.

ANADARKO MINERALS, INC. and

A&S MINERAL DEVELOPMENT CO., LLC,

 Defendants and Appellees.

APPEAL FROM: District Court of the Seventeenth Judicial District,

In and For the County of Valley, Cause No. DV-2021-04

Honorable Yvonne Laird, Presiding Judge

COUNSEL OF RECORD:

For Appellants:

James Parrot, William E. Sparks (argued), Beatty & Wozniak, P.C., 

Denver, Colorado

James A. Patten, Patten, Peterman, Bekkedahl & Green, PLLC, 

Billings, Montana

For Appellees:

Ryan C. Rusche, Matthew L. Murdock (argued), Sonosky, Chambers, 

Sachse, Endreson & Perry LLP, Washington, District of Columbia

 Argued: October 26, 2022

 Submitted: November 1, 2022

 Decided: April 6, 2023

Filed:

__________________________________________

Clerk

04/06/2023

Case Number: DA 22-0034
2

Justice Beth Baker delivered the Opinion of the Court.

¶1 Lustre Oil Company LLC and Erehwon Oil & Gas, LLC (collectively “Lustre Oil”) 

appeal the Montana Seventeenth Judicial District Court’s dismissal of their complaint for 

lack of subject-matter jurisdiction. After jurisdictional discovery, the District Court found 

A&S Mineral Development Company, LLC to be an arm of the Assiniboine and Sioux 

Tribes entitled to sovereign immunity. Lustre Oil argues in the alternative: (1) that the 

District Court “failed to utilize well-established law from the Tenth Circuit” when it found 

that A&S could be an arm of the Tribes despite its incorporation under Delaware law; 

(2) that the District Court improperly applied the Ninth Circuit’s balancing test to 

determine that A&S was an arm of the Tribes; and (3) that the District Court erred when it 

found that the Tribes did not waive A&S’s sovereign immunity. 

¶2 We decline to adopt a firm rule that would automatically bar an entity incorporated 

under state law from claiming tribal sovereign immunity, but we agree with Lustre Oil that 

the District Court did not properly weigh the relevant jurisdictional factors when it 

concluded that A&S was an arm of the Assiniboine and Sioux Tribes. We accordingly 

reverse. 

FACTUAL AND PROCEDURAL BACKGROUND

¶3 Between the 1950s and 1980s, the Fort Peck Indian Reservation, home to the 

Assiniboine and Sioux Tribes (collectively “the Tribes”), experienced an influx of private 

drilling and development of oil and gas wells. At the time, the private companies 

conducting these activities were largely unregulated, and their operations resulted in 
3

disastrous environmental impacts to the Reservation and the compromised health of the 

residing Tribal communities. This abuse of Tribal resources led the Tribes to take control 

of any further oil and gas development within the Reservation. 

¶4 On March 9, 2009, through their Tribal Executive Board, the Tribes authorized the 

formation of the A&S Mineral Development Company, LLC (“A&S”), incorporating it 

under the laws of Delaware. The Tribes formed A&S to develop oil and gas resources on 

the Tribes’ behalf. One such endeavor by A&S was to act as a holding company for the 

Tribes’ interest in the Fort Peck Energy Company, LLC. The Tribes partnered with Native 

American Resource Partners, LLC and Quantum Tribal Energy Capital, LLC to form Fort 

Peck Energy Company, LLC for the purpose of furthering the Reservation’s oil and gas 

resources. After Fort Peck Energy Company, LLC dissolved in 2017, A&S remained 

dormant for three years. 

¶5 Anadarko Minerals, Inc., a private company, operated oil and gas well leases on 

privately owned land within the exterior boundaries of the Reservation. In 2018, after 

spilling approximately 600 barrels of oil and 90,000 barrels of produced water within the 

Reservation, Anadarko assigned those oil and gas leases to the Tribes as part of a settlement 

agreement with the Tribes and the United States Environmental Protection Agency. The 

Tribal Executive Board revived A&S in 2020 to develop the leases the Tribes acquired 

from this settlement agreement. Additionally, as part of its revival, A&S assumed 

responsibility for restoration and environmental cleanup efforts at abandoned well sites 

within the Reservation, duties previously assigned to the Tribes’ Mineral Department and 

the Tribes’ Office of Environmental Protection. 
4

¶6 In February 2021, Lustre Oil filed an action against A&S and Anadarko in District 

Court seeking to quiet title and to invalidate A&S’s interests in forty-one of the fifty-seven 

oil and gas leases A&S operates within the Reservation. Lustre Oil alleged that it obtained 

valid interests to those leases from a third-party lease broker after Anadarko let the leases 

expire prior to transferring the lease interests to A&S. 

¶7 A&S and Anadarko moved the District Court to dismiss Lustre Oil’s action for lack 

of jurisdiction, failure to join necessary and indispensable parties, and failure to state a 

claim on which relief could be granted. A&S and Anadarko based their motions on A&S’s 

sovereign immunity as an arm of the Tribes. The District Court weighed the five factors 

from White v. University of California, 765 F.3d 1010 (9th Cir. 2014), to reach its 

conclusion that A&S is an arm of the Tribes, entitling it to immunity. Because it concluded 

that it did not have jurisdiction over A&S, the District Court dismissed Lustre Oil’s suit 

after determining that A&S was an indispensable party. 

STANDARD OF REVIEW

¶8 “We review de novo a district court’s ruling on a motion to dismiss for lack of 

subject matter jurisdiction.” Crawford v. Couture, 2016 MT 291, ¶ 5, 385 Mont. 350, 384 

P.3d 1038 (citations omitted). When a district court considers a motion to dismiss for lack 

of subject-matter jurisdiction based on a claim of sovereign immunity, it must engage in 

“sufficient pretrial factual and legal determinations to satisfy itself of its authority to hear 

the case before trial.” Bradley v. Crow Tribe of Indians, 2003 MT 82, ¶ 18, 315 Mont. 75, 

67 P.3d 306 (internal quotations omitted). We review these conclusions for correctness. 

Crawford, ¶ 5.
5

DISCUSSION

¶9 As a threshold matter, Lustre Oil asks this Court to adopt a bright-line rule 

preventing tribal entities from enjoying sovereign immunity when those entities are 

incorporated under the laws of a state rather than under tribal law. Alternatively, Lustre 

Oil argues that the District Court erred in its balancing of the White factors because none 

of the factors favor A&S’s immunity. Finally, Lustre Oil argues that the District Court 

erred because even if the White factors favor immunity, the Tribes waived this immunity 

for A&S. 

¶10 Issue One: Whether this Court should categorically bar entities that are 

incorporated under state law from enjoying tribal sovereign immunity. 

¶11 Lustre Oil urges this Court to follow the Tenth Circuit’s decision in Somerlott v. 

Cherokee Nation Distributors Inc., 686 F.3d 1144 (10th Cir. 2012), and categorically bar 

an entity from claiming tribal sovereign immunity if incorporated under state law. 

¶12 In Somerlott, Tina Marie Somerlott appealed a federal district court decision 

dismissing her employment discrimination claims for lack of subject matter jurisdiction. 

686 F.3d at 1146. Somerlott’s employer was CND, LLC, a clinic within the Reynolds 

Army Community Hospital in Fort Sill, Oklahoma. Somerlott, 686 F.3d at 1146. Though 

CND was wholly owned by a corporation regulated by the Cherokee Nation, it was 

incorporated under the laws of Oklahoma. Somerlott, 686 F.3d at 1146-47. CND was 

incorporated under Oklahoma law because, at the time, the Nation “did not have laws 

permitting the formation of limited liability companies.” Somerlott, 686 F.3d at 1147. 

CND claimed tribal sovereign immunity and the district court determined that CND was a 
6

“subordinate economic entity” of the Nation, entitling it to enjoy the Nation’s immunity. 

Somerlott, 686 F.3d at 1147. Somerlott appealed to the Tenth Circuit, arguing that CND’s 

activities were not sufficiently connected to the Nation to warrant sovereign immunity. 

Somerlott, 686 F.3d at 1147. 

¶13 Just ten days before the Tenth Circuit received Somerlott’s opening brief, it decided 

Breakthrough Management Group, Inc. v. Chukchansi Gold Casino & Resort, 

629 F.3d 1173 (10th Cir. 2010). In Breakthrough, the Tenth Circuit outlined factors it 

considered “helpful” to determining whether an entity could share in tribal sovereign 

immunity. 629 F.3d at 1187 (citations omitted). It did not define “the precise boundaries 

of the appropriate test to determine if a tribe’s economic entity qualifies as a subordinate 

economic entity entitled to share in a tribe’s immunity.” Breakthrough, 629 F.3d at 1187 

(emphasis in original). It also declined to find the financial relationship between the Tribe 

and the entity at issue dispositive to its conclusion on immunity. Breakthrough, 

629 F.3d at 1187. CND relied almost entirely on the factors from Breakthrough to argue 

that it was entitled to sovereign immunity. Somerlott, 686 F.3d at 1148. 

¶14 The Tenth Circuit did not apply the factors it had recently outlined in Breakthrough 

to Somerlott, concluding that “the subordinate economic entity test is inapplicable to 

entities which are legally distinct from their members and which voluntarily subject 

themselves to the authority of another sovereign which allows them to be sued.” Somerlott, 

686 F.3d at 1149-50. We compare the ruling in Somerlott to the root principles of tribal 

sovereign immunity to determine whether to adopt a similarly bright-line rule. 
7

¶15 Among the core aspects of sovereignty that tribes possess is the “common-law 

immunity from suit traditionally enjoyed by sovereign powers.” Santa Clara Pueblo v. 

Martinez, 436 U.S. 49, 58, 98 S. Ct. 1670, 1677 (1978). As a general rule, sovereign 

immunity is not limited to suits that specifically name a sovereign as a party; “an arm or 

instrumentality” of a sovereign “generally enjoys the same immunity as the sovereign 

itself.” Lewis v. Clarke, 581 U.S. 155, 162, 137 S. Ct. 1285, 1291 (2017). 

¶16 The Supreme Court has noted the weight and importance of tribal sovereign 

immunity, declaring it to be a “necessary corollary to Indian sovereignty and 

self-governance.” Three Affiliated Tribes of Ft. Berthold Reservation v. Wold Engineering, 

P.C., 476 U.S. 877, 890, 106 S. Ct. 2305, 2313 (1986). In other contexts, the Court has 

suggested that courts should examine the relationship between entities and their sovereign 

parent when determining sovereign immunity. Regents of the Univ. of Cal. v. Doe, 519 

U.S. 425, 429, 117 S. Ct. 900, 904 (1997). 

¶17 Tribes often form, and rely on, entities to carry out key aspects of tribal 

self-governance. In J.L. Ward Associates v. Great Plains Tribal Chairmen’s Health Board, 

a federal district court in South Dakota held that a tribal entity incorporated under South 

Dakota law was entitled to immunity. 842 F. Supp. 2d 1163, 1182 (D. S. D. 2012). The 

entity was formed by sixteen different tribes to provide “adequate health care to their 

constituents—a group that suffers disproportionately from certain diseases and has a lower 

life expectancy than other Americans[.]” J.L. Ward Assocs., 842 F. Supp. 2d at 1177. The 

district court found that by “engaging in these activities, [the entity] promotes the 

preservation of tribal cultural autonomy and tribal self-determination, two of the federal 
8

policies behind tribal sovereign immunity.” J.L. Ward Assocs., 842 F. Supp. 2d at 1177. 

If the district court had halted its analysis at whether the entity was incorporated under 

tribal or state law, an entity formed to “represent the health care interests of [tribal] 

members to the federal government and to participate in the establishment of health care 

programs unique to the tribes’ needs” would be without immunity. J.L. Ward Assocs., 842 

F. Supp. 2d at 1177. Similarly, in Manzano v. Southern Indian Health Council, Inc., a 

health entity formed by seven tribes for the purpose of providing “health care to American 

Indians” was entitled to immunity despite its incorporation “solely under state law.” 

No. 20-cv-02130-BAS-BGS, 2021 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 126475 at **2, 18 (S.D. Cal. July 7, 

2021). These cases demonstrate the importance of examining the circumstances of each 

case rather than utilizing a single-inquiry test to analyze tribal sovereign immunity. The 

courts examined the relationship between the Tribes and their sub-entities and how they 

work together to promote tribal self-governance, determining the relationships reflected an 

extension of sovereign immunity. 

¶18 We would not be the first to reject this bright-line ruling from Somerlott. In Rassi 

v. Federal Program Integrators, LLC, a federal district court declined to follow Somerlott

after noting that “the Tenth Circuit’s discussion of sovereign immunity in Somerlott was 

dicta.” 69 F. Supp. 3d 288, 291 (D. Me. 2014). “More importantly,” it considered the line 

of cases on which Somerlott relied to be unpersuasive in light of Lebron v. National R.R. 

Passenger Corp., 513 U.S. 374, 115 S. Ct. 961 (1995). Rassi, 69 F. Supp. 3d at 292. The 

Supreme Court in Lebron concluded that “where . . . the Government creates a corporation 

by special law, for the furtherance of governmental objectives, and retains for itself 
9

permanent authority to appoint a majority of the directors of that corporation, the 

corporation is part of the Government.” Rassi, 69 F. Supp. 3d at 292 (citing Lebron, 513 

U.S. at 399, 115 S. Ct. at 974). The Rassi court concluded that because a federally created 

entity could retain the government’s immunity under these circumstances, tribes should 

enjoy similar leeway. Rassi, 69 F. Supp. 3d at 292. 

¶19 We, too, agree that state incorporation alone does not abrogate an entity’s immunity. 

Tribes enjoy immunity from suit “on matters integral to sovereignty and self-governance.” 

Manzano, No. 20-cv-02130-BAS-BGS, 2021 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 126475 at **28-29. For 

example, in EEOC v. Navajo Health Foundation, the court concluded that incorporating as 

a nonprofit under Arizona law did not affect a hospital’s status as an Indian tribe. 

No. CV-06-2125-PCT-DGC, 2007 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 66839, at *3 (D. Ariz. Sep. 6, 2007). 

In Giedosh v. Little Wound School Board, Inc., a school board’s status as an Indian tribe 

remained unaffected by its incorporation as a nonprofit under South Dakota law. 

995 F. Supp. 1052, 1058 (D.S.D. 1997). Here, the Tribes formed A&S for both 

governmental and business-related purposes. If A&S were to be sued over its 

environmental clean-up work—a function integral to self-governance—it would have a 

strong claim to immunity. This is not to say that “business activities” are barred from tribal 

sovereign immunity. See Allen v. Gold Country Casino, 464 F.3d 1044, 1046 (9th Cir. 

2006) (immunity can “extend[] to business activities of the tribe, not merely to 

governmental activities.”). But the nature of the entity’s activity—not just whether the 

entity is incorporated under state or tribal law—should remain an important consideration 
10

when determining whether to extend immunity.1 To best support tribal self-governance 

and autonomy, a court considering a jurisdictional challenge should examine all the 

circumstances to determine whether an entity is an arm of a tribe that shares its sovereign 

immunity. The case law reveals considerable variability in outcomes because of the 

fact-dependent nature of the courts’ analysis.

¶20 In sum, though we find no fault with the District Court’s conclusion that A&S’s 

incorporation under Delaware law does not favor immunity, the court did not err when it 

refused to deny A&S tribal sovereign immunity based on state incorporation alone. 

¶21 Issue Two: Whether the White factors weigh in favor of finding tribal sovereign 

immunity for A&S.

¶22 “Tribal sovereign immunity not only protects tribes themselves, but also extends to 

arms of the tribe acting on behalf of the tribe.” White, 765 F.3d at 1025 (citing Michigan 

v. Bay Mills Indian Cmty., 572 U.S. 782, 790, 134 S. Ct. 2024, 2031 (2014) (other citations 

omitted). In White, the Ninth Circuit considered the following five factors derived from 

Breakthrough to determine whether an entity acts “on behalf of the tribe”:

(1) the method of creation of the economic entities; (2) their purpose; 

(3) their structure, ownership, and management, including the amount of 

control the tribe has over the entities; (4) the tribe’s intent with respect to the 

sharing of its sovereign immunity; and (5) the financial relationship between 

the tribe and the entities.

White, 765 F.3d at 1025 (quoting Breakthrough., 629 F.3d at 1187). Like the Breakthrough 

court, we decline to adopt a precise test for determining whether a tribe’s economic entity 

1 At oral argument, Lustre Oil’s counsel acknowledged that immunity and waiver thereof may be 

determined on a claim-specific basis. 
11

is entitled to share the tribe’s sovereign immunity. But we agree that these factors provide 

useful guidance in a reviewing court’s consideration. When assessing the factors, the 

analysis should be guided by the “central policies” supporting tribal sovereign immunity, 

including the “preservation of tribal cultural autonomy” and the “preservation of tribal 

self-determination.” White, 765 F.3d at 1025. Here, the District Court assessed each White 

factor individually and concluded that A&S was entitled to sovereign immunity. 

¶23 First, the District Court considered the “method of creation” for A&S. Following 

Williams v. Big Picture Loans, LLC, 929 F.3d 170 (4th Cir. 2019), it focused on the 

incorporation of A&S under Delaware law. Though it did not consider this fact dispositive, 

the District Court determined that A&S’s incorporation under Delaware law weighed 

against a finding of tribal sovereign immunity. The court stated that “[m]ost courts that 

have been confronted with this issue have held that organization under state law weighs 

against a finding that the entity in question has sovereign immunity.” 

¶24 Second, the District Court considered A&S’s purpose and found that this factor 

weighed “heavily” in favor of sovereign immunity. It reasoned that purposes related to 

“broader goals of tribal self-governance” should weigh in favor of finding immunity. 

Williams, 929 F.3d at 178. The court considered documents related to the formation of 

A&S and concluded that the entity was “formed to provide revenue for tribal government 

programs by conducting oil and gas development on behalf of the Tribes’ [sic].” The 

District Court found that “A&S’s environmental purposes significantly advance the policy 

of tribal self-determination[;] because of this and the entity’s role in funding the Tribes in 

lieu of a tax base this factor weighs heavily in favor of sovereign immunity.” 
12

¶25 The District Court also found that the third factor, management and control by the 

Tribes, weighed in favor of sovereign immunity. It considered A&S’s formal governance 

structure; its ownership by the Tribes; its day-to-day management; the Tribes’ authority to 

appoint and remove managers and board members; and, proportionally, how many 

employees were members of the Tribes. The District Court found that the Tribal Executive 

Board “retains ultimate authority over A&S.” Additionally, the Tribal Executive Board 

appoints the officers and the manager of A&S and retains the right to override decisions 

and assume complete control over A&S at any time. The court found that three employees 

out of four are Tribal members, and all five of A&S’s officers are Tribal members. The 

District Court also found that the manager of A&S, though not a Tribal member, is “a long 

serving and loyal tribal employee.” Based on these facts, the court concluded that the 

Tribes exercised sufficient management and control to favor sovereign immunity. 

¶26 The District Court found that the fourth factor, the Tribes’ intent to share its 

immunity, did not weigh in favor of A&S based on the A&S Operating Agreement and the 

Fort Peck Energy Company Operating Agreement. The court considered Section 10.9 of 

the A&S Operating Agreement that reads as follows: “Any agreement, obligations, and 

transactions entered into by [A&S], shall be solely for its account and only its assets shall 

be subject to any claim related thereto.” Though the court did not consider this language 

an “express waiver” of sovereign immunity, it did determine that this language, along with 

language from the Fort Peck Energy Company Operating Agreement specifically stating 

that A&S “shall not be construed as possessing sovereign immunity,” demonstrated that 

the Tribes “intended A&S to be subject to suit in state court.” 
13

¶27 Finally, the District Court assessed the Tribes’ financial relationship with A&S and 

determined that this factor weighed in favor of sovereign immunity. The court found that 

“all of A&S’s profits are distributed directly to the Tribes on a quarterly basis.” Because 

the revenue from A&S goes “directly to the Tribes’ general fund to be used for tribal 

government programs as provided by tribal law,” the court found that this factor weighed 

in favor of tribal sovereign immunity. 

¶28 The District Court then tallied the five factors, concluding that because “three out 

of the five factors weigh in favor of immunity,” A&S should be considered an arm of the 

Tribes protected by sovereign immunity. The court placed particular emphasis on the 

purpose of A&S and the financial relationship between the Tribes and A&S as supportive 

in its finding for immunity. On appeal, both parties take issue with the District Court’s 

assessment of certain White factors. 

¶29 A&S and Anadarko first contend that “the circumstances of A&S’s creation actually 

support its immunity” because it was created by the Tribes’ elected legislature, the Tribal 

Executive Board, as authorized by the Tribes’ Constitution. A&S and Anadarko submit 

that “A&S’s formation is readily distinguishable from the chartering of a normal business 

entity because the Tribes created A&S to fulfill important objectives of governmental 

policy.” Lustre Oil argues that incorporating under state law “weighs heavily against a 

finding of sovereign immunity.” 

¶30 We conclude that incorporating under state rather than tribal law does not favor 

immunity. See American Prop. Mgmt. Corp. v. Superior Court, 206 Cal. App. 4th 491, 

502, 141 Cal. Rptr. 3d 802, 810 (2012) (citing cases from different jurisdictions that 
14

weighed incorporation under state law against a finding of sovereign immunity). Courts 

and commentators have observed that a tribe effectively may communicate its intention to 

waive sovereign immunity for a tribal enterprise by creating a business entity under state 

law. See Wright v. Colville Tribal Enterprise Corp., 159 Wn. 2d 108, 113-115, 147 P.3d 

1275, 1279-80 (Wa. 2006) (noting that “[w]hen a tribal corporation and government are 

not completely distinct, the immunity of the latter extends to the business operations of the 

former,” but suggesting that incorporation under state law has the opposite effect) (citing 

Dao Lee Bernardi-Boyle, State Corporations for Indian Reservations, 26 Am. Indian 

L. Rev. 41 (2001)). See also Airvator v. Turtle Mountain Mfg. Co., 329 N.W.2d 596, 

602-03 (N.D. 1983) concluding that “state-chartered corporations should be treated as 

non-Indians” because, in part, “a corporation is an entity distinct and separate from its 

shareholders, directors, officers, and agents,” which may sue and be sued under state law). 

¶31 Some of these courts appear to follow the Somerlott approach. See e.g., State v. 

Cherokee Servs. Grp., LLC, 2021 ND 36, ¶ 15, 955 N.W.2d 67 (N.D. 2021) (recognizing 

North Dakota’s rulings that “[w]hen a tribal entity subjects itself to a state by organizing 

under the state’s laws, it waives sovereign immunity.”). But we decline to adopt Lustre 

Oil’s position that incorporation under state law should hold such a heavy emphasis without 

also considering the entire circumstances of an entity’s method and creation as related to 

its parent tribe. In Manzano, the court looked beyond the entity’s incorporation solely 

under state law to find that the entity’s method and creation did favor immunity because 

the entity provided health services to tribal communities on tribal land and comprised 

“federally recognized tribes, all of which passed resolutions authorizing it to assume 
15

authority from the government over its services.” No. 20-cv-02130-BAS-BGS, 

2021 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 126475 at **16-18; see also McCoy v. Salish Kootenai College, 

Inc., 334 F. Supp. 3d 1116, 1121 (D. Mont. 2018), aff’d, 785 Fed. Appx. 414 (9th Cir. 

2019) (holding that “state incorporation or dual incorporation does not divest a tribal 

corporation of its tribal status” and considering the White factors to conclude that tribal 

college was an arm of the tribe entitled to share in its sovereign immunity).

¶32 Lustre Oil argues in turn that the purpose of A&S simply was to shield the Tribes 

from legal and financial liability. Some courts have adopted the understanding that a tribal 

entity’s “stated purpose is sufficiently related to tribal self-governance where the ‘entity 

was created to develop the tribe’s economy, fund its governmental services, or promote 

cultural autonomy.’” Applied Scis. Info. Sys. v. Ddc Constr. Servs., No. 2:19-cv-575, 

2020 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 94435 at *7 (E.D. Va. Mar. 30, 2020) (citing People v. Miami 

Nation Enterprises, 2 Cal. 5th 222, 246, 211 Cal. Rptr. 3d 837, 386 P.3d 357 (2016)). It is 

clear from A&S’s formative documents that it was created to develop the Reservation’s oil 

and gas resources as well as to assume responsibility for environmental cleanup efforts 

related to oil and gas development. These are goals that fund the Tribes’ governmental 

services by developing oil and gas resources and promote the cultural autonomy and 

self-governance of the Tribes by protecting Tribal lands from environmental degradation. 

See Breakthrough, 629 F.3d at 1188 (citations omitted). 

¶33 Though Lustre Oil does not dispute that the Tribes own A&S or that the Tribal 

Executive Board retains control over A&S, it argues that the management and control of 

A&S weighs against a finding of immunity because the Tribes “delegated most of the 
16

control of A&S to its General Manager, Ms. Debi Madison, who is not a member of the 

Tribes.” In Miami Nation Enterprises, the California Supreme Court concluded that tribes 

may “be enmeshed in the direction and control of the business without being involved in 

the actual management.” 2 Cal. 5th at 247, 386 P.3d at 373 (quotation omitted). Based on 

the Tribes’ oversight of A&S and the Tribal Executive Board’s right to assume control of 

A&S at any time, together with the right to appoint officers and the manager, we conclude 

that its appointment of Debi Madison, a non-Tribal member but long-time Tribal employee, 

as manager is not enough to weigh A&S’s management against a finding of immunity. 

¶34 Lustre Oil also contends that the financial relationship between A&S and the Tribes 

does not support immunity because there is no proof of the proportionate share of A&S’s 

financial contributions to the Tribes’ overall budget. Lustre Oil complains that the Tribes 

were wrong to withhold information regarding their overall budget from the District Court 

record. We agree with the Connecticut Supreme Court, however, that courts need not probe 

so deeply into a tribe’s governmental affairs. The “opening and examination of a tribe’s 

financial books and records . . . in the absence of any indication that . . . proceeds are 

flowing to nontribal members or that the entities serve a purpose other than the one asserted 

by the tribe, would infringe too greatly on tribal self-governance and self-determination.” 

Great Plains Lending, LLC v. Dep’t of Banking, 339 Conn. 112, 135, 259 A.3d 1128, 

1144-45 (citing Williams, 929 F.3d at 180). A&S returns one hundred percent of its profits 

to the Tribes, which amounted to nearly $185,000 over a three- to four-month period the 

District Court examined. We consider more important the percentage of profits returned 

to the Tribes than the proportionate share A&S contributes to the Tribes’ overall budget. 
17

Lustre Oil provided no indication that A&S falsified this information or that the Tribes did 

not use this revenue to fund their government. 

¶35 A&S and Anadarko argue that the District Court incorrectly concluded that the 

Tribes did not intend to share their sovereign immunity with A&S. They argue that the 

“close association and control over A&S” should demonstrate that the Tribes intended to 

extend sovereign immunity. But the District Court’s conclusion on this point finds support 

in the record. It reflects that whenever the Tribes had occasion to address the matter, they 

documented their intent to treat A&S as a separate entity not immune from suit in state 

courts. 

¶36 First, the March 10, 2009 A&S Operating Agreement contains several provisions 

separating the Tribes, as a member, from A&S, as a company, for liability purposes. 

Section 1.6 of the Operating Agreement contains the following language:

Qualification in Other Jurisdictions. The Company may do business in 

any jurisdiction only if such jurisdiction recognizes the limited liability of the 

Member to substantially the same extent as would be recognized for a limited 

liability company under the laws of the State of Delaware.

(Italics added.) Similarly, Section 6.2 limits the liability of the Tribes to third parties:

Liability to Third Parties. No Member shall be liable for the debts, 

obligations, or liabilities of the Company, including under a judgment decree 

or order of a court. No agreement or commitment entered into by the 

Company shall bind or be enforceable against the Member or the Member’s 

Assets. All such debts, obligations, liabilities, agreements, or commitments 

shall be solely obligations of the Company, enforceable and collectable only 

against and from the Company’s assets. 

(Italics added.) In Section 10.2, the Agreement distinguishes between its governing law 

and that governing the Tribes’ conduct:
18

Governing Law. This Agreement shall be construed in accordance with and 

governed by the laws of the State of Delaware without regard to principles 

of conflict of laws. . . . All matters pertaining to any action taken by the 

Tribes, as the Member of the Company, and the Tribes’ Executive Board 

shall be governed and construed with the laws of the Tribes.

In Section 10.9, the Tribes clearly retain their sovereign immunity and again separate A&S 

from the Tribes for the purposes of liability. In the original agreement the following section 

was drafted in bold and all-capitalized letters:

Sovereign Immunity of the Tribes. Any agreements, obligations, and 

transactions entered into by the company shall be solely for its account and 

only its assets shall be subject to any claim related thereto. In no event shall 

the Tribes have any obligation or be subject to any claim with respect to any 

agreement or transaction into which the company may enter or engage. 

Nothing herein contained shall be construed as a waiver or limitation of the 

sovereign immunity possessed and enjoyed by the Tribes as federal 

recognized Indian Tribes or by their officers, the members of their executive 

board, their employees and agents. 

(Italics added.) This founding document shows the Tribes’ intent to establish a separate 

corporate entity “subject to . . . claims” while preserving the Tribes’ sovereign immunity. 

¶37 Next, the 2009 Fort Peck Energy Company Operating Agreement expressly 

provided that A&S “shall not be construed as possessing sovereign immunity” and that 

A&S “irrevocably waives any sovereign immunity that it may be construed to possess.” 

The Agreement was followed by a separate Acknowledgment and Waiver of Sovereign 

Immunity, in which the Tribes expressly acknowledged that A&S “does not and shall not 

be construed to possess sovereign immunity.” The Acknowledgment and Waiver 

expressed further that this waiver extended to “any sovereign immunity that [A&S] now 

or in the future may possess or may be construed to possess.” The Tribes made clear in 

the same document that they did not waive their own sovereign immunity. 
19

¶38 A&S points out that the Fort Peck Energy Company Operating Agreement was 

specific to the Fort Peck Energy Company and, by its terms, did “not creat[e] any rights or 

benefits in or to third parties,”—i.e., Lustre Oil. The Acknowledgment and Waiver also 

made clear that it was adopted in order to induce the private partners to enter into the Fort 

Peck Energy Company venture. We agree with A&S that this document expressly waived 

immunity only for purposes of Fort Peck Energy Company operations. Tribes are entitled 

to waive immunity with limitation because waiving sovereign immunity is voluntary. 

See Oglala Sioux Tribe v. C&W Enters., 542 F.3d 224, 231 (8th Cir. 2008). Due to the 

strong presumption against a waiver of tribal sovereign immunity, “[a]ny waiver of 

immunity . . . ‘cannot be implied but must be unequivocally expressed.’” Bradley, ¶ 17 

(citations omitted). The Fort Peck Energy Company Operating Agreement clearly limits 

the application of immunity waivers to the members of the Fort Peck Energy Company 

Operating Agreement in Section 10.14. The Fort Peck documents nonetheless offer an 

additional example of the Tribes treating A&S as a separate entity that they anticipated 

could be sued in state courts. 

¶39 More on point to this case, when reactivating A&S years later the Tribes passed a 

Resolution for the purpose of administering the Anadarko leases. The October 12, 2020 

Resolution provided:

WHEREAS, upon the recommendation of legal counsel, the Tribes intend 

to accept the assignment of [Anadarko’s] Lustre Field assets and assume its 

Lustre Field obligations and liabilities through a wholly-owned limited 

liability company, A&S Mineral Development Company, LLC . . . in 

existence and in good standing under the laws of Delaware, to insulate the 

Tribes from any direct liability with respect to this transaction other than any 
20

capital that the Tribes may contribute to A&S Mineral to complete this 

acquisition and support its operations[.]

(Italics added.) The Tribes followed with another Resolution that provided, “the 

Assiniboine and Sioux Tribes has agreed to separate all Tribal mineral development 

operations from the Tribal government operations and transfer all such operations to the 

A&S Mineral Development Co., LLC to operate mineral development activities separate 

and distinct from the Tribes . . . .” (Emphasis added.) These Resolutions, pertaining 

directly to the leases that are the subject of this litigation, demonstrate that the Tribes 

intended A&S to exist “separate” from the Tribes and “distinct” from the Tribes’ immunity 

from legal liabilities. 

¶40 In sum, each time the Tribes had occasion to document the functions and purposes 

of A&S—including the documents governing the company’s management of the Anadarko 

leases—they expressed a clear separation between the Tribal government, which retained 

sovereign immunity, and the separate business entity, which the documents anticipate may 

be subject to claims against its assets. These documents are the clearest indication of the 

Tribes’ intent and demonstrate why sovereign immunity is not determined by a simple tally 

of factors. 

¶41 Just as we do not accept a dispositive rule associated with any single fact, we decline 

to adopt an analysis that otherwise fails to consider all the circumstances of an entity’s 

relationship with its parent tribe and the nature of the claims at issue. An assessment of

sovereign immunity must consider whether, under the circumstances of the case and the 

relationship between the entity and its parent tribe, some considerations should be given 
21

more weight. In this case, the Tribes’ choice to incorporate A&S under Delaware law—

thereby subjecting it to state laws allowing limited liability companies to sue and be 

sued2—coupled with the Tribes’ stated intent to keep A&S a separate and distinct entity 

for liability purposes, including for the management of the leases at issue, convinces us on 

de novo review that the District Court erred in its legal conclusions when it weighed and 

balanced the factors and determined that A&S is immune from suit in this case as an arm 

of the Tribe. 

¶42 Finally, Lustre Oil argues that Section 10.9 of the A&S Operating Agreement and 

Section 10.16 of the Fort Peck Energy Company Operating Agreement unambiguously 

waive A&S’s sovereign immunity in this case. Tribes are presumptively immune from suit 

unless Congress authorizes suit or the tribes waive sovereign immunity. Kiowa Tribes of 

Oklahoma v. Mfg. Techs., Inc., 523 U.S. 751, 754, 118 S. Ct. 1700, 1703 (1998) (citations 

omitted). A tribal entity does not enjoy the same presumptive immunity from suit unless 

the entity is determined to be an arm of the tribe. Williams, 929 F.3d at 177. Our 

conclusion that A&S is not an arm of the Tribes for purposes of Lustre Oil’s claims renders 

an express waiver analysis unnecessary because the Tribes did not extend immunity in the 

first place. See Williams, 929 F.3d at 177 (an entity must demonstrate that it is an arm of 

the tribe entitled to immunity before the burden shifts to the party arguing against sovereign 

immunity to demonstrate that immunity was abrogated by Congress or waived by the tribe). 

2

See 6 Del. C. §§ 18-215(b)(1), 18-218(c)(1).
22

¶43 We conclude that consideration of all the circumstances encompassed within the 

White factors weighs against the extension of sovereign immunity to A&S as an arm of the 

Tribes for the purpose of Lustre Oil’s claims in this case. 

CONCLUSION

¶44 A&S is not entitled to sovereign immunity from Lustre Oil’s claims in this case. 

The District Court erred in concluding otherwise. We reverse and remand the case for 

further proceedings. 

/S/ BETH BAKER

We Concur: 

/S/ MIKE McGRATH

/S/ JAMES JEREMIAH SHEA

/S/ JIM RICE

Justice Jim Rice, concurring. 

¶45 I concur with the Court, but the opinion well illustrates the deficits in current law 

regarding determination of tribal corporation immunity, and the need for clearer standards 

or bright-line rules. “[C]ommercial activity of tribes has proliferated,” Michigan v. Bay 

Mills Indian Cmty., 572 U.S. 782, 823, 134 S. Ct. 2024, 2051, 188 L. Ed. 2d 1071, 1105 

(2014) (Thomas, Ginsburg, Scalia, Alito, JJ, dissenting), including the creation of tribal 

corporations, but the law has not caught up. We are left with nebulous factors to 

“consider,” Opinion, ¶ 22, when deciding if a tribal corporation is “sufficiently related to 

tribal self-governance” to warrant extension of the tribe’s immunity to the corporation. 
23

Opinion, ¶ 32 (citation omitted). In pursuit of this sufficient-relation determination, we 

conclude here that incorporation of the tribal business entity under state law “does not 

favor” immunity, but nonetheless also conclude this fact should not “hold such a heavy 

emphasis without also considering the entire circumstances” of the entity’s method and 

creation “as related to its parent tribe.” Opinion, ¶¶ 30, 31. However, when undertaking 

consideration of these “entire circumstances . . . as related to [the] parent tribe,” we may 

not “probe [too] deeply into a tribe’s governmental affairs,” because this inquiry itself may 

“infringe too greatly on tribal self-governance and self-determination.” Opinion, ¶¶ 31, 34 

(citation omitted). Thus, there are countervailing considerations for application of 

individual factors, and differing weights to be assigned to each factor. Viewed in 

combination with the elusive sixth factor, which mandates the overall analysis be guided 

by “the policies underlying tribal sovereign immunity,” Breakthrough Mgmt. Group, Inc. 

v. Chukchansi Gold Casino & Resort, 629 F.3d 1173, 1187 (10th Cir. 2010), courts are left 

with a malleable muddle with little guidance on how to even assess the factors, let alone 

apply them. Indeed, our determination in this case to reverse orbits around the tribal intent 

factor, about which we conclude that, while the District Court correctly weighed the factor 

against extension of tribal immunity, it nonetheless erred by not weighing this factor 

enough against tribal immunity. Opinion, ¶ 41.

¶46 The White multi-factor balancing test, first utilized by the Ninth Circuit in 2014, is 

already a demonstrably ineffective mechanism for dealing with this issue. The 

determination of immunity for tribal corporations engaged in the streams of commerce, 

highlighted by the recent phenomenal growth in tribal commercial activities, should not be 
24

left to such shifting sands. “Tribal immunity significantly limits, and often extinguishes, 

the States’ ability to protect their citizens and enforce the law against tribal businesses. . . . 

The problem repeats itself every time a tribe fails to pay state taxes, harms a tort victim, 

breaches a contract, or otherwise violates state laws, and tribal immunity bars the only 

feasible legal remedy.” Bay Mills, 572 U.S. at 823-24 (Thomas, Ginsburg, Scalia, Alito, 

JJ, dissenting). States and tribes must be able to operate with clarity when tribal agents 

engage in off-reservation commercial enterprises. The Somerlott rule could be a start, but 

it addresses a limited circumstance, and its current validity is unclear. The vagueness in 

the law promotes lengthy litigation in every case, and leaves the law, and thus the courts, 

with insufficient direction. A better test must be adopted, or Congress must act to provide 

clear guidance. 

/S/ JIM RICE

Justice Laurie McKinnon, specially concurring.

¶47 I would conclude, under the five factors in White v. University of California, 765 

F.3d 1010 (9th Cir. 2014), and A&S’s clear connection to tribal economic development 

and self-determination, that A&S is an enterprise of the Tribes but that the Tribes have

waived A&S’s immunity. Indeed, A&S is an archetypal tribal entity: it was created by the 

Tribes’ government and rooted in its constitution; its purpose is solely to benefit the Tribes 

through economic development of its natural resources; it is completely owned and 

managed by the Tribes, and all revenues A&S earns are paid into the Tribes’ general fund 

for the benefit of its people and tribal programs. Notwithstanding the Tribes’ creation of 
25

A&S as a tribal enterprise, the Tribes expressly declined to extend their immunity to A&S, 

likely “to ensure that A&S is able to conduct business on a regular basis.”1 Our wholesale 

conclusion that A&S is not a tribal entity misconstrues the law. The first crucial question 

is whether A&S functions as an enterprise of the Tribes. It clearly does. The second crucial 

question is whether the Tribes have waived A&S’s sovereign immunity. It clearly has. I 

would conclude that A&S is an enterprise of the Tribes but that the Tribes have expressly 

waived A&S’s sovereign immunity. I therefore concur in the judgment reached by the 

Court, but strongly disagree with the Court’s analysis. 

¶48 Our de novo standard of review requires that we review for clearly erroneous facts 

and incorrect conclusions of law. Here, the Court does not conclude the District Court 

made erroneous factual determinations or that it failed to make required findings. Instead, 

the Court concludes the District Court made incorrect conclusions of law when it did not 

give sufficient weight to one of the five White factors. The Court makes the same

conclusions of law as the District Court. However, the Court holds the District Court erred 

in the weight it gave to the intent factor in the balancing. Here, the District Court held that 

the language contained in the A&S Operating Agreement weighed against immunity; but 

the Court holds that same language completely defeats immunity, even when balanced with 

the other factors. This is essentially a de facto conclusion, not a balancing and 

consideration of all the White factors, and it is also a misapplied waiver analysis. By 

“blending” two distinct analyses of waiver and “arm of the tribe,” the Court throws the 

1 Tribes’ Resolution #2276-2009-10.
26

baby (creation of a tribal entity to further tribal interests) out with the bathwater (an express 

waiver of A&S’s immunity). The Court also misconstrues the “method of creation” factor 

by finding that the Tribes’ decision to incorporate under Delaware law weighed against 

finding immunity. I will address this error as well.

¶49 To begin, Lustre Oil has asked this Court to apply Somerlott v. Cherokee Nation 

Distributors Inc., 686 F.3d 1144 (10th Cir. 2012), to conclude that A&S does not have 

immunity. Somerlott is the progeny of several cases out of the Tenth Circuit which are not 

discussed by the Court. Therefore, before addressing the propriety of adopting Somerlott, 

some jurisprudential background information is in order. I am also concerned the Court 

has relied upon many cases in its analysis which are distinguishable from the circumstances 

here and do not provide the support the Court claims they do. In White, for example, the 

Ninth Circuit considered whether the Kumeyaay Cultural Repatriation Committee, a tribal 

organization which was formed in 1997 by tribal resolutions from each of its twelve 

Kumeyaay Nation member tribes, was an “arm of the tribe” entitling it to the tribe’s 

sovereign immunity status in litigation under the Native American Graves Protection and 

Repatriation Act (NAGPRA), 25 U.S.C. § 3001. Applying the Tenth Circuit’s factors from

Breakthrough Management Group, Inc. v. Chukchansi Gold Casino & Resort, 629 F.3d 

1173 (10th Cir. 2010), the Ninth Circuit concluded that the Repatriation Committee was 

an “arm of the tribe.” Importantly, and absent from the Court’s discussion here, the 

Repatriation Committee in White was not created under state law but was created by the 

tribes under tribal law. White, 765 F.3d at 1025. Its purpose was to organize tribal leaders 

and members to address repatriation efforts under NAGPRA. The Ninth Circuit considered 
27

whether NAGPRA’s enforcement clause conferring jurisdiction to the federal courts over 

an action alleging a violation of NAGPRA abrogated tribal sovereign immunity. Noting 

that when Congress intends to abrogate a tribe’s sovereign immunity it must do so 

unequivocally, the court concluded that the Act did not contain an “unequivocal 

expression” of abrogation. White, 765 F.3d at 1024; see Michigan v. Bay Mills Indian 

Cmty., 572 U.S. 782, 788, 134 S. Ct. 2024, 2031 (quoting Santa Clara Pueblo v. Martinez, 

436 U.S. 49, 58, 98 S. Ct. 1670, 1677 (1978)). Thus, White dealt with an Act of Congress 

which clearly affected the tribes and their ancestry. No aspect of White involved a tribal 

entity incorporated under state law for purposes of enhancing economic development. Nor 

does White speak to a significant aspect in this case; and that is that the Tribes specifically 

and expressly declined to extend its immunity to the tribal entity it created.

¶50 The Court fails to adequately discuss and distinguish Breakthrough. Breakthrough

similarly did not involve an entity created under state law. Breakthrough is the second of 

three cases issuing from the Tenth Circuit over a four year period which involved a tribal 

entity and whether it was an “arm of the tribe.” The first case, Native American 

Distributing v. Seneca-Cayuga Tobacco Co., 546 F.3d 1288 (10th Cir. 2008), is 

particularly relevant to the facts here because of the inclusion in the entity’s corporate 

charter that it had the power “[t]o sue and be sued; to complain and defend in any court.” 

Native Am. Distrib., 546 F.3d at 1290. Lustre Oil argues that Delaware statutes provide 

that a Delaware created limited liability company “shall be a separate legal entity” subject 

to suit. In Native American Distributing, the Seneca-Cayuga Tribe of Oklahoma, a 

federally recognized Indian tribe, exercised its power under Section 3 of the Oklahoma 
28

Indian Welfare Act of 1936, 25 U.S.C. § 503, to organize by creating a constitution and a 

corporate charter, although only required to organize under one entity. Native Am. Distrib.,

546 F.3d at 1290. The tribe, under its constitution, created a “Business Committee” with 

the power to transact business and otherwise speak on behalf of the tribe. In contrast to the 

tribe’s constitution, the tribe’s corporate charter contained a clause granting the corporate 

entity the power to sue and be sued in any court. The Business Committee, exercising its 

authority under the tribal constitution, adopted a resolution creating a tribal enterprise for 

the manufacture and sale of tobacco and declared “such Tribal enterprise and its activities 

as essential government functions of the Seneca-Cayuga Tribe.” Native Am. Distrib., 546 

F.3d at 1291. The question before the Tenth Circuit was whether the entity created by the 

Business Committee, the Seneca-Cayuga Tobacco Company (SCTC), functioned as an 

enterprise of the Tribe, which would extend sovereign immunity to SCTC, or whether it 

functioned as an enterprise of the Tribal Corporation, which had expressly and 

unequivocally waived its immunity through the “sue or be sued” clause contained within 

its corporate charter.2 Native Am. Distrib., 546 F.3d at 1293.

¶51 First, the court rejected plaintiffs’ arguments that the scope of the tribal immunity 

doctrine should be limited to exclude commercial activities. The court explained that 

2 The court noted the defendants had conceded the “sue or be sued” clause constituted an 

unequivocal waiver of immunity, but the court also observed that whether such a clause contained 

in a corporate charter functions as an unequivocal waiver has been questioned. Native Am. 

Distrib., 546 F.3d at 1293 n.2. “Most courts have reasoned that tribal adoption of a charter with 

such a clause simply creates the power in the corporation to waive immunity, and that adoption of 

the charter alone does not independently waive tribal immunity.” Felix S. Cohen’s Handbook of 

Federal Indian Law § 7.05(1)(c) (2005 ed.).
29

“[w]hile the Supreme Court has expressed misgivings about recognizing tribal immunity 

in the commercial context, the Court has also held that the doctrine is ‘settled law’ and that 

it is not the judiciary’s place to restrict its application.” Native Am. Distrib., 546 F.3d at 

1294 (citing Kiowa Tribe of Okla. v. Mfg. Techs., Inc., 523 U.S. 751, 756-59, 118 S. Ct. 

1700, 1703-06, (1998)). The court observed that the Supreme Court has indeed 

acknowledged “tribes could use their immunity as a sword rather than a shield.” Kiowa 

Tribe, 523 U.S. at 756. However, the court reasoned that “[d]espite these concerns with 

the assertion of immunity, the [Supreme] Court has held fast to its position that such 

concerns are not the province of the courts, but of Congress or of the tribe itself.” Native 

Am. Distrib., 546 F.3d at 1294. See Ute Distrib. Corp. v. Ute Indian Tribe, 149 F.3d 1260, 

1267 (10th Cir. 1998) (holding that there can be no “waiver of tribal immunity based on 

policy concerns, perceived inequities arising from the assertion of immunity, or the unique 

context of a case”); Pan Am. Co. v. Sycuan Band of Mission Indians, 884 F.2d 416, 419 

(9th Cir. 1989) (“Indian sovereignty, like that of other sovereigns, is not a discretionary 

principle subject to the vagaries of the commercial bargaining process or the equities of a 

given situation.”).

¶52 Recognizing that limiting the scope of the doctrine to exclude commercial activities 

should be left to Congress, the court in Native American Distributing declined to limit the 

doctrine by excluding commercial activities and proceeded to address the facts, concluding 

SCTC functioned as an “arm of the tribe.” The court acknowledged the well-recognized 

principle that a tribe’s immunity from suit under the doctrine may be overcome in only one 

of two ways: first, Congress has the power to abrogate the tribe’s immunity; and second, 
30

the tribe can waive its own immunity. Native Am. Distrib., 546 F.3d at 1293. In either 

event, “a waiver of sovereign immunity cannot be implied but must be unequivocally 

expressed.” Ute Distrib., 149 F.3d at 1263 (quoting Santa Clara Pueblo, 436 U.S. at 58). 

The court concluded that “[w]hile the Business Committee could have invoked its powers 

under the Corporate Charter to justify creation of a tobacco company, it instead invoked its 

constitutional powers to do so.” Native Am. Distrib., 546 F.3d at 1294. Moreover, the 

court noted the resolution creating the tobacco company expressly declared that its 

activities are “essential government functions of the Seneca-Cayuga Tribe” and, further, 

that there was no reason for the Business Committee to have used this language unless it 

intended “to make clear that the tobacco company was a division of the Tribe . . . .” Native 

Am. Distrib., 546 F.3d at 1294. Finally, the court reasoned that the same resolution which 

approved an agreement with another entity for management of the tobacco company 

expressly provided that the Business Committee did waive immunity to the management 

company, but only as to the management company. Thus, by including an express waiver 

of immunity in the resolution, one limited to the management company, the court held the 

Business Committee clearly expressed its belief that SCTC was a division of the tribe that 

was entitled to immunity, and that for this immunity to be waived, it would need to 

affirmatively express an intention to do so. Native Am. Distrib., 546 F.3d at 1294. The 

court next explained that SCTC was not created under the tribe’s corporate charter and 

therefore was not bound by the “sue or be sued” clause; rather SCTC was created under 

the tribe’s constitution which had not waived the tribe’s sovereign immunity. Native Am. 

Distrib., 546 F.3d at 1294.
31

¶53 Two years later, in Breakthrough, the Tenth Circuit again revisited the relationship 

between an Indian tribe and the economic entity created by the tribe to assess how close 

that relationship must be for those entities to share in the tribe’s sovereign immunity. 

Breakthrough, 629 F.3d at 1176. Breakthrough provided management services for the 

Chukchansi Tribe’s casino, which was owned and operated by the Chukchansi Economic 

Development Authority. Both entities were unincorporated and created by the tribe for the 

sole purpose of promoting tribal interests through the ownership and operation of an Indian 

gaming facility. The court recognized that Congress had sought to promote tribal 

sovereignty and self-sufficiency through economic development and, particularly relevant 

to the Chukchansi Tribe, provided a statutory authorization for Indian gaming, 25 U.S.C. 

§ 2702(1). See Cal. v. Cabazon Band of Mission Indians, 480 U.S. 202, 218-219, 107 

S. Ct. 1083, 1093 (1987) (“The Cabazon and Morongo Reservations contain no natural 

resources which can be exploited. The tribal games at present provide the sole source of 

revenues for the operation of the tribal governments and the provision of tribal services. 

They are also the major sources of employment on the reservations. Self-determination 

and economic development are not within reach if the Tribes cannot raise revenues and 

provide employment for their members”). Further, it was undisputed in Breakthrough that 

tribal sovereign immunity may extend to subdivisions of a tribe, including those engaged 

in economic activities, “provided that the relationship between the tribe and the entity is 

sufficiently close to properly permit the entity to share in the tribe’s immunity.” 

Breakthrough, 629 F.3d at 1183. Thus, the court framed the question: “Does the resulting 

entity have a distinct, nongovernmental character and therefore is not immune, or is it 
32

merely an administrative convenience, and therefore immune?” Breakthrough, 629 F.3d 

at 1184.

¶54 The primary issue in Breakthrough was the trial court’s application of the Johnson3

test to measure the closeness of the relationship between the tribe and the Chukchansi 

Economic Development Authority and casino. The Johnson test required application of 

ten factors; however, the tenth factor was considered a threshold determination for the 

remaining nine factors. The tenth factor considered the financial relationship between the 

entity and the tribe and whether a judgment against the entity would affect tribal assets, 

just as the Supreme Court of Alaska had done in Runyon v. Association of Village Council 

Presidents, 84 P.3d 437 (Alaska 2004). The court, returning to its decision in Native 

American Distributing, explained that the most important lesson learned from that decision 

was that “[the court] did not examine the financial relationship between SCTC and the tribe 

and whether a judgment against SCTC would reach the tribe’s monetary assets, much less 

designate that factor as a threshold determination.” Breakthrough, 629 F.3d at 1187. The 

court reaffirmed that its decision in Native American Distributing “depended upon whether 

SCTC was a division of the tribal corporation, which had waived its immunity from suit, 

or of the tribe, which had waived its immunity only as to actions of the tribal corporation.” 

Breakthrough, 629 F.3d at 1186.

3

Johnson was an unpublished opinion from the United States District Court for the District of 

Kansas. Johnson v. Harrah’s Kansas Corp., No. 04-4142-JAR, 2006 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 7299, 

2006 WL 463138 (D. Kan. Feb. 23, 2006).
33

¶55 After rejecting the Johnson test, the court adopted a six factor test, which has been 

set forth in the majority opinion. The court next applied the six factor test to the 

Chukchansi tribal entities. The court explained, under the first factor, that the entities were 

created under tribal law and described by resolution as an “instrumentality” and 

“authorized agency” of the tribe. Breakthrough, 629 F.3d at 1192-93. The entities were 

characterized in their founding documents as “a wholly owned . . . enterprise of the Tribe” 

which, the court concluded, naturally suggested that they enjoyed a close relationship to 

the tribe. Breakthrough, 629 F.3d at 1192. The purpose for creating the entities, the second 

factor, was to “further the economic prosperity” of the tribe through allocation of casino 

revenue for the tribe’s benefit. Breakthrough, 629 F.3d at 1192. The structure, ownership, 

and management of the entities—the third factor—favored immunity because the entities 

were primarily run by members of the tribe. Regarding the fourth factor of intent, the court 

concluded the tribe clearly intended to extend tribal sovereign immunity to the entities 

because the ordinances themselves “clothed” them with the same privileges and immunities 

as the tribe and clearly expressed the tribe’s belief that the entities were a division of the 

tribe entitled to immunity. Breakthrough, 629 F.3d at 1193-94. The financial relationship 

between the tribe and the entities demonstrated the entities were close to the tribe because 

the tribe depended heavily on the casino for revenue to fund its governmental operations, 

support its tribal members, and search for other economic development opportunities. And, 

finally, the sixth factor—the overall purpose of tribal sovereign immunity—was served by 

extending immunity to the entities because Congress had expressed a strong policy in favor 

of encouraging tribal economic development and extending immunity “directly protects 
34

the sovereign Tribe’s treasury, which is one of the historic purposes of sovereign immunity 

in general.” Breakthrough, 629 F.3d at 1183 (quoting Allen v. Gold Country Casino, 464 

F.3d 1044, 1047 (9th Cir. 2006)). The court noted that, in comparison, “[c]ases which have 

not extended immunity to tribal enterprises typically have involved enterprises formed 

solely for business purposes and without any declared objective of promoting the [tribe’s] 

general tribal and economic development.” Breakthrough, 629 F.3d at 1195 (internal 

quotations omitted) (quoting Trudgeon v. Fantasy Springs Casino, 71 Cal. App. 4th 632, 

640, 84 Cal. Rptr. 2d 65, 70 (1999)). The court concluded that the entities were so closely 

related to the tribe that they should share in the tribe’s sovereign immunity. Breakthrough, 

629 F.3d at 1195.

¶56 It is important to examine the court’s analysis and reasoning in Native American 

Distributing and Breakthrough, as I have done, to place in context the Tenth Circuit’s third 

decision—Somerlott—and the propriety of adopting its reasoning. Lustre Oil asks this 

Court to adopt the Somerlott decision and hold that A&S, because the Tribes incorporated 

the company in Delaware, is not entitled to the Tribes’ immunity. Native American 

Distributing and Breakthrough provide the groundwork for addressing whether a tribal 

entity is entitled to a tribe’s immunity. Although the Court rejects applying Somerlott, it 

is upon reasoning I do not find persuasive.

¶57 In Somerlott, the Tenth Circuit held that an entity is legally distinct from its 

members and tribe when it “voluntarily subject[s] themselves to the authority of another 

sovereign which allows them to be sued.” Somerlott, 686 F.3d at 1149-50. Accordingly, 

“a separate legal entity organized under the laws of another sovereign . . . cannot share in 
35

the [tribe’s] immunity from suit, and it is not necessary to apply the six-factor 

[Breakthrough] test.” Somerlott, 686 F.3d at 1150. The concurring opinion buttressed the 

reasoning of the court:

[Tribal sovereign immunity] is not limited by the type of activity involved or 

where it takes place. But no matter how broadly conceived, sovereign 

immunity has never extended to a for-profit business owned by one sovereign 

but formed under the laws of the incorporating second sovereign when the 

laws of the incorporating second sovereign expressly allow the business to 

be sued. And it doesn’t matter whether the sovereign owning the business is 

the federal government, a foreign sovereign, state—or tribe. 

Somerlott, 686 F.3d at 1156.

¶58 The concurrence reasoned that as a legally distinct entity being created, embodied, 

and brought into existence by the law of a second sovereign, a corporation is defined by 

and subject to the privileges and responsibilities provided by that sovereign’s laws. 

Somerlott, 686 F.3d at 1156. A corporation is not a natural person, but “an artificial being 

that may exercise only those privileges the law confers upon it, either expressly, or as

incidental to its very existence.” Somerlott, 686 F.3d at 1156 (internal quotations omitted). 

Thus, the concurrence reasoned, the entity’s claim to immunity is inconsistent with this 

foundational principle of corporate law and the state law under which it became 

incorporated becomes part of its charter. When a tribe chooses to create an entity under 

state law, it does so according to the terms another sovereign has prescribed and it has no 

authority to “commandeer that State’s legislative processes and rewrite the statutory terms 

and condition of its formation . . .,” any more than a state may rewrite the laws of a tribe. 

Somerlott, 686 F.3d at 1156. To allow the entity “to revise Oklahoma’s statutory code to 

suit its preferences, would, clearly viewed, represent an infringement on the rights of only 
36

one sovereign—Oklahoma.” Somerlott, 686 F.3d at 1156. Finally, the Somerlott

concurrence reasoned that the Breakthrough six factor test “does not alter the analysis” 

because the test only exists to determine whether a particular tribal entity is or is not “a 

legal entity separate and distinct from the tribe; when incorporated under state law, the 

laws of the second sovereign say that it is.” Somerlott, 686 F.3d at 1156.

¶59 It is well-established that a tribe’s immunity from suit may only be overcome in 

one of two ways. First, Congress has the power to abrogate the tribe’s immunity. Santa 

Clara Pueblo, 436 U.S. at 58. Second, the tribe can waive its own immunity. E.F.W. v. 

St. Stephen’s Indian High Sch., 264 F.3d 1297, 1304 (10th Cir. 2001). In either event, “a 

waiver of sovereign immunity cannot be implied but must be unequivocally expressed.” 

Santa Clara Pueblo, 436 U.S. at 58. Accordingly, Somerlott’s conclusion that a tribal 

entity waives sovereign immunity by incorporating under the laws of another sovereign 

informs a waiver analysis and is thus distinguishable from an impermissible judicial 

narrowing or expansion of the sovereign immunity doctrine itself.4 This is evident because 

the Tenth Circuit had previously recognized the role of Congress in altering the scope of 

the doctrine, and declared it was not the role of the judiciary. In my opinion, very simply, 

Somerlott incorrectly holds that utilizing a second sovereign’s laws as a vehicle for 

incorporation automatically and unequivocally constitutes a waiver. Somerlott’s reasoning 

suggests that based on the place of an entity’s incorporation it can no longer avail itself of 

4 Examples of when Congress acts to limit the scope of tribal immunity include the Indian Gaming 

Regulatory Act, 25 U.S.C. § 2710(d)(7)(ii); the Clean Water Act, 33 U.S.C. § 1365; the Safe 

Drinking Water Act, 42 U.S.C. § 300j-9(i)(1)(c); the Resources Conservation and Recovery Act, 

42 U.S.C. § 6972; and the Hazardous Materials Transportation Act, 49 U.S.C. §§ 5101-5125.
37

certain laws. However, when a corporation agrees to “sue or be sued” under another 

sovereign’s laws it does not forego the application of that jurisdiction’s substantive laws. 

A tribal entity incorporated under state law may still claim the benefit of that state’s laws 

and the federal law, which include principles of sovereign immunity. See Okla. Tax 

Comm’n v. Citizen Band of Potawatomi Indian Tribe, 498 U.S. 505, 509-10, 111 S. Ct. 

905, 909-10 (1991) (the fact that a tribe as a plaintiff was subjected to a compulsory 

counterclaim under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 13(a) was insufficient to waive 

sovereign immunity). 

¶60 The Tenth Circuit’s own precedent does not support a rule of automatic waiver when 

a sovereign avails itself of another sovereign’s laws. In E.F.W., plaintiffs argued that tribal 

defendants waived their immunity by entering into an agreement with the State of 

Wyoming for social services, arguing that these defendants became state actors because 

the agreement incorporates state law, provides for state training, and allows the state to 

inspect and review the tribes’ case records. Plaintiffs also argued that when E.F.W. was 

removed from her home, the only authority supporting such action was state law. Plaintiffs 

did not argue that Congress had abrogated the tribes’ immunity, only that the agreement 

and the requirement to follow state law constituted a waiver by the tribes. 

¶61 The Tenth Circuit disagreed. It concluded the agreement contained no language that 

could be construed as an unequivocal waiver by the tribes. E.F.W., 264 F.3d at 1304. The 

court reasoned the State of Wyoming, Shoshone and Arapaho Tribal Social Services, and 

the tribes themselves did “not waive sovereign immunity by entering [into] the 

[agreement], and specifically retain[ed] immunity and all defenses available to them as 
38

sovereigns pursuant to Wyo. Stat. Sec. 1-39-104(a) and all other applicable Tribal, Federal 

or State law.” E.F.W., 264 F.3d at 1304. The fact that the tribe “agreed to act in accordance 

with state law to some degree and in essence to adopt state law [was] simply not an express 

waiver of their tribal sovereignty with respect to actions taken under that law.” E.F.W.,

264 F.3d at 1304. The court noted the Supreme Court has held that “[t]o say substantive 

laws apply to off-reservation conduct, however, is not to say that a tribe no longer enjoys 

immunity from suit . . . . There is a difference between the right to demand compliance 

with state laws and the means available to enforce them.” Kiowa Tribe, 523 U.S. at 751.

¶62 Consistent with these principles, courts throughout the country have repeatedly held 

a tribe’s agreement to comply with a particular law does not amount to an unequivocal 

waiver of a tribe’s immunity. See, e.g., Nanomantube v. Kickapoo Tribe in Kan., 631 F.3d 

1150, 1153 (10th Cir. 2011) (holding a tribe’s agreement to comply with Title VII of the 

Civil Rights Act of 1964 did not constitute “an unequivocal waiver of tribal sovereign 

immunity”); Wis. v. Timber & Wood Products, 379 Wis. 2d 690 (Wis. 2017) (claim against 

a tribe to recover taxes alleging that it waived its sovereign immunity by agreeing to 

comply with the Forest Croplands Law was dismissed because, while the statute made it 

liable for payment of severance tax, it did not state that the tribe consented to be sued in 

order to enforce any lien or personal liability); Sanderlin v. Seminole Tribe of Fla., 243 

F.3d 1282, 1289 (11th Cir. 2001) (a tribe’s contractual promise to comply with an 

anti-discrimination provision of the Rehabilitation Act “merely convey[ed] a promise not 

to discriminate” and “in no way constituted an express and unequivocal waiver of 

sovereign immunity”); Cohen v. Little Six, Inc., 543 N.W.2d 376, 380 (Minn. Ct. App. 
39

1996) (a tribal corporation did not waive its sovereign immunity by registering as a foreign 

corporation and thereby agreeing to be “subject to the laws of [Minnesota]”); Sheffer v. 

Buffalo Run Casino, PTE, Inc., 2013 OK 77, ¶ 42, 315 P.3d 359, 371 (Okla. 2013) (holding 

a tribe did not waive its sovereign immunity by applying for and accepting a liquor 

license—which required the tribe to agree not to violate federal, state, or municipal law—

because by doing so the tribe merely promised to comply with those laws, not subject itself 

to lawsuits). 

¶63 Based on the foregoing, I would reject Somerlott’s reasoning and conclusion that a 

tribal entity incorporating in another state automatically and unequivocally waives its 

sovereign immunity. Whether an entity is a tribal entity depends on the context in which 

the question is addressed. Dille v. Council of Energy Res. Tribes, 801 F.2d 373, 376 

(10th Cir. 1986) (stating that “the definition of an Indian tribe changes depending upon the 

purpose of the regulation or statutory provision under consideration”). In my opinion, the 

Somerlott analysis presumes an unequivocal waiver in every instance and context, contrary 

to well established precedent. I do not find persuasive, as the Court does, the logic of

Lebron v. Nat’l R.R. Passenger Corp., 513 U.S. 374, 115 S. Ct. 961 (1995), which did not 

involve a tribe and addressed whether Amtrack was an instrumentality of the federal 

government for First Amendment purposes, or the federal district court cases—Manzano 

v. S. Indian Health Council, Inc., No. 20-cv-02130-BAS-BGS, 2021 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 

126475 (S.D. Cal. July 7, 2021), J.L. Ward Assocs. v. Great Plains Tribal Chairmen’s 

Health Bd., 842 F. Supp. 2d 1163 (D. S. D. 2012), and Giedosh v. Little Wound Sch. Bd., 

Inc., 995 F. Supp. 1052 (D. S. D. 1997). In J.L. Ward and Manzano, for example, the 
40

primary issue before the court was the formation of an entity which brought together 

numerous tribes from different states, picking one state within which to incorporate. 

Instead, any discussion of the propriety of adopting Somerlott must be informed by a 

waiver analysis: whether there has been an express and unequivocal waiver by the tribe 

itself. Tribes do not waive their immunity by agreeing to act in accordance with or adopting 

state law. I thus disagree with the Court when it concludes that A&S’s incorporation under 

Delaware law “weighs” against immunity on the first Breakthrough factor—method of 

creation. The cases upon which the Court relies either stand for the Somerlott proposition 

that there is an automatic unequivocal waiver upon state incorporation or do not otherwise 

associate state incorporation under the “method of creation” factor. Opinion, ¶ 30. In my 

opinion, the factor examining how an entity was created demands a more meaningful and 

substantive examination than just an observation that the incorporation occurred under state 

law. 

¶64 Here, in contrast to the Court’s sole reliance on A&S’s incorporation under 

Delaware law, I would consider circumstances normally addressed by courts and conclude 

that A&S’s method of creation supports that it is a tribal entity. In 2009, the Tribes elected 

a governing Executive Board, pursuant to its constitutional authority to “engage in any 

business that will further the economic well-being of the members of the Tribes” and to 

“undertake any programs and projects designed for the economic advancement of the 

people . . .,” and enacted Resolution 1514-2009-03 which directed that A&S be created to 

proceed with the development of the Tribes’ natural resources. The Resolution provided 

it was the “Tribes’ top priority to secure business relationships with credible oil and gas 
41

companies that are willing to enter into business relationships that would be in the best 

interest of, and of benefit to members of the Tribes.” The Resolution provided that the 

“Tribes will participate [in this development] via a limited liability corporation the Tribes 

will form, to be called A&S Mineral Development Company, LLC.” Thus, A&S was 

created as an instrumentality and agency of the Tribes and was wholly owned and managed 

by the Tribes. I would conclude that although A&S was incorporated under state law, that 

it nonetheless was created by the Tribes pursuant to its constitutional authority and by 

resolution through its governing body. A&S’s creation clearly was a result of the Tribes’ 

exercise of self-governance for the benefit of tribal members. In my opinion, the Court is 

wrong to conclude the vehicle of incorporation is a more important consideration than the 

founding documents and authority for A&S’s creation; that is, the Tribes’ constitutional 

authority and governing body’s resolutions. The method of creation favors a conclusion 

that A&S is a tribal enterprise.

¶65 Although I would conclude that the Tribes expressly waived A&S’s immunity, it is 

my opinion that the District Court properly weighed and considered the remaining White

factors. The purpose for creating A&S was to further economic prosperity of the Tribes 

through development of its oil and gas resources. The A&S Operating Agreement also 

provided that its purpose was for the Tribes to have control over oil and gas development 

to avoid further environmental degradation. A&S was wholly owned by the Tribes and the 

Tribal Executive Board retained authority over A&S through its appointment of all A&S 

officers, A&S’s manager, and its ability to override any decision and assume complete 

control over A&S’s operations at any time. Finally, all A&S’s profits are distributed 
42

directly to the Tribes on a quarterly basis and deposited into the Tribes’ general fund. The 

record shows A&S’s revenue is substantial: over one quarter (between October 2020 and 

January 2021) A&S provided $184,805 to the Tribes. This revenue significantly protects 

the Tribes’ treasury and promotes self-determination and self-sufficiency of the Tribes. 

A&S is the archetypal tribal entity created and managed by the Tribes for the benefit of the 

Tribes’ members. It is distinctly governmental in character and functions as an 

instrumentality of the Tribes. Based on the foregoing, I would conclude that A&S 

functions as a tribal enterprise and, but for the express waiver, would be entitled to the 

Tribes’ immunity.

¶66 Unlike the tribe itself, an entity is not given “a presumption of immunity until it has 

demonstrated that it is in fact an extension of the tribe.” Williams v. Big Picture Loans, 

LLC, 929 F.3d 170, 177 (4th Cir. 2019). Once a defendant has demonstrated they are a 

tribal entity, “the burden to prove the immunity has been abrogated or waived would then 

fall to the plaintiff.” Williams, 929 F.3d at 177. A&S, based on my foregoing analysis, 

has demonstrated they function as a tribal enterprise. Accordingly, the burden shifts to 

Lustre Oil to demonstrate A&S’s immunity has been waived. I would conclude that Lustre 

Oil has met that burden.

¶67 In 2009, the Tribes established the A&S Operating Agreement (Agreement). Article 

1.5 of the Agreement provides A&S “shall continue indefinitely or until earlier terminated 

in accordance with Article 8 [Winding Up].” Thus, at the time these proceedings were 

initiated and during the development of the facts underlying these proceedings, A&S was 

a functional, viable—albeit inactive—corporation in good standing and governed by the 
43

2009 Agreement. The terms of the Agreement are thus indicative of whether the Tribes 

intended to extend its immunity to A&S. It expressly declared that they did not.

¶68 Article 10.9 expressly waives A&S’s immunity. It is the only section within the 

whole Agreement which is entirely capitalized. It provides:

SOVEREIGN IMMUNITY OF THE TRIBES. ANY AGREEMENTS, 

OBLIGATIONS, AND TRANSACTIONS ENTERED INTO BY THE 

COMPANY SHALL BE SOLELY FOR ITS ACCOUNT AND ONLY ITS 

ASSETS SHALL BE SUBJECT TO ANY CLAIM RELATED THERETO. 

IN NO EVENT SHALL THE TRIBES HAVE ANY OBLIGATION OR BE 

SUBJECT TO ANY CLAIM WITH RESPECT TO ANY AGREEMENT 

OR TRANSACTION INTO WHICH THE COMPANY MAY ENTER OR 

ENGAGE. NOTHING HEREIN CONTAINED SHALL BE CONSTRUED 

AS A WAIVER OR LIMITATION OF THE SOVEREIGN IMMUNITY 

POSSESSED AND ENJOYED BY THE TRIBES AS FEDERALLY 

RECOGNIZED INDIAN TRIBES, OR BY THEIR OFFICERS, THE 

MEMBERS OF THEIR EXECUTIVE BOARD, THEIR EMPLOYEES 

AND AGENTS.

¶69 This is an express and unequivocal waiver from the Tribes that A&S was not to 

share in their sovereign immunity. As in Native American Distributing, sovereign 

immunity here was exclusively limited to the Tribes. The Agreement further provided in 

Article 6.2:

No Member shall be liable for the debts, obligations, or liabilities of the 

Company, including under a judgment decree or order of a court. No 

agreement or commitment entered into by the Company shall bind or be 

enforceable against the Member or the Member’s Assets. All such debts, 

obligations, liabilities, agreements, or commitments shall be solely 

obligations of the Company, enforceable and collectable only against and 

from the Company’s assets.

¶70 In addition to these provisions of the Agreement, which in my opinion constitute 

express and unequivocal waivers from the Tribes that A&S would not enjoy their 

immunity, the Tribes also issued two resolutions in 2020 regarding the leases at issue here. 
44

The first tribal resolution issued October 12, 2020, provided A&S was “in existence and in 

good standing” and would “insulate the Tribes from any direct liability with respect to this 

transaction other than any capital that the Tribes may contribute to A&S Mineral to 

complete this acquisition and support its operation . . . .” In a second resolution issued 

October 23, 2020, the Tribes provided: “Whereas, the Assiniboine and Sioux Tribes has 

agreed to separate all Tribal mineral development operations from Tribal government 

operations and transfer all such operations to the A&S Mineral Development Co. LLC to 

operate mineral developments separate and distinct from the Tribes . . . .” While these 

resolutions themselves do not mention sovereign immunity as the Agreement did, they 

support that A&S was not to have the Tribes’ sovereign immunity. 

¶71 Based on the foregoing analysis, I would conclude that the A&S Operating 

Agreement the Tribes entered when forming A&S constituted an express and unequivocal 

waiver of A&S’s immunity. I would not find a waiver of immunity based on the Tribes’ 

incorporation of A&S under Delaware law as there is well-established precedent that the 

Tribes’ agreement to act in accordance with state law is not an express waiver of their 

immunity. While I understand the distinction in Somerlott regarding creation of an entity 

under state law versus agreeing to follow state law, it is not a distinction worthy of 

establishing a rule of automatic waiver, particularly given the requirement in Kiowa Tribe, 

and like precedent, that any waiver must be express and unequivocal. Finally, I disagree 

that A&S is not a tribal entity. I think the Court’s conclusion to the contrary will 

detrimentally impact a tribe’s ability to establish entities that promote development of tribal 
45

resources which will enhance the tribe’s self-determination, self-sufficiency, and provide 

benefits to its members. 

¶72 It is pursuant to this analysis that I would resolve this case. I, therefore, specially 

concur. 

/S/ LAURIE McKINNON

Justices Ingrid Gustafson and Dirk Sandefur join in the special concurrence of Justice 

Laurie McKinnon. 

/S/ INGRID GUSTAFSON

/S/ DIRK M. SANDEFUR