Opinion ID: 2844076
Heading Depth: 3
Heading Rank: 1

Heading: pci

Text: Alabama argues that PCI does not share in the Tribe’s immunity because PCI is a business entity separate from the Tribe that engages in commercial, not 12 Case: 14-12004 Date Filed: 09/03/2015 Page: 13 of 42 governing, activities. We conclude that PCI shares in the Tribe’s immunity because it operates as an arm of the Tribe.18 First, the Supreme Court has not “drawn a distinction between governmental and commercial activities of a tribe” when deciding whether there is tribal immunity from suit. Kiowa Tribe, 523 U.S. at 754-55. Second, we agree with our sister circuits that have concluded that an entity that functions as an arm of a tribe shares in the tribe’s immunity. See Allen v. Gold Country Casino, 464 F.3d 1044, 1046 (9th Cir. 2006) (“When the tribe establishes an entity to conduct certain activities, the entity is immune if it functions as an arm of the tribe.”); Ninigret Dev. Corp. v. Narragansett Indian Wetuomuck Hous. Auth., 207 F.3d 21, 29 (1st Cir. 2000) (“The Authority, as an arm of the Tribe, enjoys the full extent of the Tribe’s sovereign immunity.”); Hagen v. Sisseton-Wahpeton Cmty. Coll., 205 F.3d 1040, 1043 (8th Cir. 2000) (holding that entity that “serves as an arm of the tribe . . . is thus entitled to tribal sovereign immunity”). Because Alabama does not dispute that PCI operates as an arm of the Tribe, PCI shares the Tribe’s immunity. 18 The parties disagree about whether we held in Freemanville Water System, Inc. v. Poarch Band of Creek Indians that PCI shares in the Tribe’s immunity. 563 F.3d 1205 (11th Cir. 2009). In Freemanville, we decided that the Tribe and PCI enjoyed immunity from a claim that the Tribe’s planned construction of a water system violated federal law. In reaching that conclusion, we did not address whether PCI shares in the Tribe’s immunity because the parties agreed that PCI shared in whatever immunity the Tribe enjoyed. Id. at 1207 n.1. As the question of whether PCI shares in the Tribe’s immunity was not before us in Freemanville, here we address the issue for the first time. 13 Case: 14-12004 Date Filed: 09/03/2015 Page: 14 of 42