Antonin Scalia

“ To say that "§ 1362 . . . suggests that in certain respects tribes suing under this section were to be accorded treatment similar to that of the United States had it sued on their behalf," 425 U.S., at 474, 96 S.Ct., at 1642, does not remotely imply delegation-only equivalence of treatment. The delegation theory is entirely a creature of respondents' own invention.
Finally, respondents ask us to recognize § 1362 as a congressional abrogation of Eleventh Amendment immunity. We have repeatedly said that this power to abrogate can only be exercised by a clear legislative statement. ”

“ Hence, respondents suggest, because the United States would face no sovereign immunity limitation, in no case brought under § 1362 can sovereign immunity be a bar.
"The district courts shall have original jurisdiction of all civil actions, brought by any Indian tribe or band with a governing body duly recognized by the Secretary of the Interior, wherein the matter in controversy arises under the Constitution, laws, or treaties of the United States." ”

“ We have repeatedly held that Indian tribes enjoy immunity against suits by States, Potawatomi Indian Tribe, supra, 498 U.S., at ----, 111 S.Ct., at ----, as it would be absurd to suggest that the tribes surrendered immunity in a convention to which they were not even parties. ”

“ In arguing that sovereign immunity does not restrict suit by Indian tribes, respondents submit, first, that sovereign immunity only restricts suits by individuals against sovereigns, not by sovereigns against sovereigns, and as we have recognized, Oklahoma Tax Commission v. ”

“ James Madison expressed a similar understanding at the Virginia Convention ("It is not in the power of individuals to call any state into court") , 3 J. Elliot, The Debates in the Several State Conventions on the Adoption of the Federal Constitution 533 (2d ed. 1863) (emphasis added) , as did Chief Justice Marshall (" [A] n individual cannot proceed to obtain judgment against a state, though he may be sued by a state.") ”

“ Citizen Band Potawatomi Indian Tribe of Okla., 498 U.S. ----, ----, 111 S.Ct. 905, ----, 112 L.Ed.2d 112 (1991) , Indian tribes are sovereigns. Respondents' conception of the nature of sovereign immunity finds some support both in the apparent understanding of the Founders, and in dicta of our own opinions. [1] But whatever the reach or meaning of these early statements, the notion that traditional principles of sovereign immunity only restrict suits by individuals was rejected in Monaco v. ”

“ Hoffman, 872 F.2d 1384 (1989) (later withdrawn) , and then, upon reconsideration, on the ground that Alaska had no immunity against suits by Indian tribes. 896 F.2d 1157 (1989) . We granted certiorari. 498 U.S. ----, 111 S.Ct. 37, 112 L.Ed.2d 14 (1990) .
The Eleventh Amendment provides as follows:
"The Judicial power of the United States shall not be construed to extend to any suit in law or equity, commenced or prosecuted against one of the United States by Citizens of another State, or by Citizens or Subjects of any Foreign State." ”

“ North Carolina, 192 U.S. 286, 318, 24 S.Ct. 269, 275, 48 L.Ed. 448 (1904) , and suits by the United States, United States v. Texas, 143 U.S. 621, 12 S.Ct. 488, 36 L.Ed. 285 (1892) . We have not found a surrender by the United States to suit by the States, Kansas v. United States, 204 U.S. 331, 342, 27 S.Ct. 388, 391, 51 L.Ed. 510 (1907) ; see Jackson, The Supreme Court, the Eleventh Amendment, and State Sovereign Immunity, 98 Yale L.J. 1, 79-80 (1988) , nor, again, a surrender by the States to suit by foreign sovereigns, Monaco. ”