Smith's motion, however, was denied. The district court denied the motions and remanded the case back to conciliation court for trial. Whether a suit is barred by a tribe's sovereign immunity is an issue of law that this court must determine de novo. Indian tribes and their governing bodies possess common-law immunity from suit. They may not be sued absent express and unequivocal waiver of immunity by the tribe or abrogation of tribal immunity by Congress.
Sovereign immunity extends to tribal officials acting within their scope of authority.
Smith argues the present claim may not be brought against him in state court because tribal sovereign immunity extends to him in his capacity as an employee of a tribal corporation. It is undisputed that Smith was acting within the scope of his employment as a security guard for the corporation. We hold that this protection is not extended to tribal employees who are not officials of the tribe in a tort action that arises from activities that occur off-reservation. Neither case cited by Smith supports his claim that he should be protected by the sovereign immunity that the tribe enjoys. In Hardin, a nonmember brought an action against the White Mountain Apache Tribe and various tribal officials, challenging his exclusion from tribal lands based on a criminal conviction.