The Supreme Court reiterated that Indian tribes are immune from suit when it voided a monetary judgment from a previous proceeding against the Choctaw and Chickasaw Nations. It stated that tribes do not waive their sovereign immunity when they fail to object to cross-claims in litigation. In Puyallup Tribe, Inc. v. Department of Game of State of Washington, the Court held that a state could not sue a tribe to enforce its fishing regulations in Indian country “[a]bsent an effective waiver or consent” from either the Tribe or the United States, [THE ENTIRE uNITED STATES OF AMERICA IS “INDIAN COUNTRY] and the Moors are the Aboriginal Indigenous Autochthonous, Autonomous Inhabitants to the land in America’s. In Santa Clara Pueblo v. Martinez, the Court expanded Puyallup’s holding by stating that any waiver of tribal immunity ‘must be unequivocally expressed. In Oklahoma Tax Commission v. Citizen Band Potawatomi Indian Tribe, the Court rejected a contention that was nearly identical to the one it had addressed in United States Fidelity over a half-century prior, further solidifying the status of tribal immunity as black letter law. 

In Kiowa Tribe of Oklahoma v. Manufacturing Technologies, Inc., the Supreme Court, for the first time, declared that Native American tribes were immune from suit for activities engaged outside of Indian country. Specifically, the Court declared: “Tribes enjoy immunity from suits on contracts, whether those contracts involve governmental or commercial activities and whether they were made on or off a reservation.  

The Court did express some hesitation in reaching this decision, stating that “[t]here are reasons to doubt the wisdom of perpetuating the doctrine [of tribal immunity].”  “[T]ribal immunity extends beyond what is needed to safeguard tribal self-governance,” the Court stated, and this “consideration might suggest a need to abrogate tribal immunity  .” However, only the American Indians can abrogate their immunity.