WPCA 1͆ċK@Ȁ)C UH49C3qўQMѩ'ۓdͩT}ۦ?5qd/zEy}Eb(l3H/dy~\t*3nbtuοj.z{BԺAk/S3KXGTnW*so2ʯgI%S^fFPָ(II ]W#jM ;{zՊgQCNu_ߵI"ٴK"Y/ GjF#=*R FrЈ:;uOJGڪLz TVo8bOHdĢcNSv~zx:$tqg<En`[kqU=B &nL& %O(U( 0j* 0bi, 0- 0. 0/ 0c0 021 0z2 0{2 0J3 04 04 05 06 0j7 0x8 0p9 0vj; 0t<T> 0@@ 0*CFC'C 0UI 0*$J)K 09K#K(MNM^ MwM4MM mM 0MN'TWZ[]]za 0jf 0Pg 03h 0i 0i 0j 0k 0Cul 0l 0m 0cn 04o 0p 0p 0q 0Zr 0@s 0Zs 0.t 0t 0u 0v 0`w 0%x 0x 00y 0<y 0z 0>z 0v { 0`{ 0`{ 0`B| 0`| 0`} 08b} 0} 02l~ 0~ 0: 0Y 0_- 0  0j 0 B* D/ D+݄ 0 D/ 0 06 0 0:Lj 0^ 0<_ 1e 0NU6NU>U*Š B  1uɍ 72>U5FpU8xf(|s̚E A 0nT;NUNEߟfab D5UF4z 0K:HHHmmmMMFcz>:+-!5s~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~MMMMMMMMMMMMMM 6Z\  `*Times New RomanTT\  `*Times New RomanTTC\  P6QP\  `*Times New RomanTTXXP\  P6QXP<6X9`("Courier NewTTTTXXx6X@DQX@'   Aroostook 2 Fein0Fein .   ^:_Equation Ca_Equation CaptionXXXW\  `*Times New RomanTTW        W\  `*Times New RomanTTW@ 0captioncaption  XXXW\  `*Times New RomanTTW        W\  `*Times New RomanTTW  P5T 8toa headingtoa heading   (#        >4X` hp x (#>  @;T 0index 2index 2  ` (#        >4X` hp x (#>  @;T 0index 1index 1  ` (#        >4X` hp x (#>  88T ,toc 9toc 9   (#        >4X` hp x (#>  88T ,toc 8toc 8   (#        >4X` hp x (#>  8! ,toc 7toc 7            88T ,toc 6toc 6   (#        >4X` hp x (#>  8>T ,toc 5toc 5  h(#        >4X` hp x (#>  8>T ,toc 4toc 4   (#        >4X` hp x (#>  8>T ,toc 3toc 3  ` (#        >4X` hp x (#>  8;T ,toc 2toc 2  ` (#        >4X` hp x (#>  88T ,toc 1toc 1   (#        >4X` hp x (#>  `\A@D:footnote reffootnote referencetStX:XtS        tStX:XtSV :footnote texfootnote text  XXXW\  `*Times New RomanTTW        W\  `*Times New RomanTTW  ^:endnote refeendnote referenceXXXW\  `*Times New RomanTTW        W\  `*Times New RomanTTWT :endnote textendnote text  XXXW\  `*Times New RomanTTW        W\  `*Times New RomanTTW  h:Default ParaDefault Paragraph FontXXXW\  `*Times New RomanTTW        W\  `*Times New RomanTTW  pU$ttttttXCXt      1    _ ~ Becauseofthenarrowjurisdictionalnatureofthisappeal,  thesubstanceofthediscriminationchargesisnotrelevant.(x2E$  Q!tOtOtO{tO    pU$ttttttXCXt      6    _TherecorddoesnotrevealwhyMainedidnotarguelackof  subjectmatterjurisdictionearlier,byfilingamotiontodismiss x  underFed.R.Civ.P.12(b)(1).Atanyrate,itwasproperto  raisetheissueatsummaryjudgment.Subjectmatterjurisdiction x maybechallengedatanystage.Fed.R.Civ.P.12(h)(3).($      pU$ttttttXCXt      29    _sXCXXtXCsCXXsXCTobesure,theMassachusettsCommissiondiffersfromthe  MaineCommissioninthatMassachusettscourts"accordfinal x decisionsofthe_MCAD_Ԁpreclusiveeffect,"LocalUnionNo.12004, @ 377F.3dat71n.6,whereastheMaineCommission"hasnoauthority X toissueorders,adjudicateclaims,awarddamages,ormakefinal   factualfindingsthatarebindingontheparties,"TortillaFlat,  Inc.v.Me.HumanRights_Comm'n_,No.AP-97-024,1997Me.Super. `  LEXIS194,at*4(Me.Super.Ct.June24,1997).Wedonotfind ( x thesedifferencestobedispositivehere.#sXCXXsC,#sCXXsXC#tCXXsC #sCXXtCTheBandarguesthatit  @ isnotsubjectto#sXCXXsC#Maine'slawsandcannotbemadetoappearbefore    anyMainetribunal,regardlessofthattribunal'sparticular    enforcementpowers.#tXCXXsXC#*+ (_2623  ..(%2pU$  Q!tOtOtO{tO  tO{tX9XtO      0  3|x (]Q$tttTgtHP LaserJet 5/5M - Standard,,,,0!2s L=18:i+002U*G+M (_25   /%` ` hp x /23  ..  5+ ` hp x 5    pU$ttttttXCXt      30    _sXCXXtXCMainearguesthatthiscasemorecloselyresemblesReyesv.  SupervisoroftheDEA,834F.2d1093(1stCir.1987),wherethe x plaintiffarguedthatanentryinagovernmentfilestatingthathe @ wasamemberofaterroristorganizationwasincorrectandhad X resultedinmorestringentconditionsofimprisonment.Weaffirmed   dismissalofhisdueprocesschallengebecauseheallegedonlyharm  tohis"interestinagoodnameorgoodreputation"andnotany `  "continuinginfringementofalibertyinterest,orthathe ( x realistically_expect[ed_]arepetitionofhispreviousexperiences"  @ inprison.Id.at1098.Reyesishardlyausefulanaloguebecause    theBand'sinterestinselfgovernanceisdecidedlygreaterthana    prisoner'sinterestincorrectinformationinagovernmentfile, H   andtheBandmayrealisticallyexpecttorepeatitsprevious `  experienceswiththeCommission.#tXCXXsXC #  pU$ttttttXCXt      2    _sXCXXtXCWhilethecomplainantcanskiptheCommissionaltogetherand  proceedstraighttocourt,Mainelawprovidesasignificant x incentivenottodoso.Successfulcourtplaintiffscanrecover @ attorney'sfees,civilpenaldamages,compensatorydamages,or X punitivedamagesonlyiftheyhadexhaustedtheirCommission   remediesbeforefilingsuit.Id.4622(1).#tXCXXsXC #  pU$ttttttXCXt      10    _"ThisConstitution,andtheLawsoftheUnitedStateswhich  shallbemadeinPursuancethereofsXCXXtXC...#tXCXXsXC#ԀshallbethesupremeLaw x oftheLand;andtheJudgesineveryStateshallbeboundthereby, @ anyThingintheConstitutionorLawsofanyStatetotheContrary X notwithstanding."U.S.Const.,art.VI,cl.2.Level 1Level 2Level 3Level 4Level 5 { pU$ttttttXCXt      5    _Atthatpoint,theCommissionhadnotyetmadea  determinationregardingAyoob'scomplaint.Level 1Level 2Level 3Level 4Level 5  pU$ttttttXCXt      19    _  Wereiteratethatthisappealisfocusednarrowlyon  jurisdiction.Forjurisdictionalpurposes,"theinquiryinto x whethersuitliesunderExparteYoungdoesnotincludeananalysis @ ofthemeritsoftheclaim."VerizonMd.,535U.S.at63637; X PenobscotNationII,254F.3dat322("[A]colorableclaimofa   federalcauseofactionwillconfersubjectmatterjurisdiction  eventhoughtheclaimitselfmayfailasamatteroflawonfurther `  examination.").  pU$ttttttXCXt      11    _Thecomplaintpleadsaviolationof42U.S.C.1983,butthe  Bandappearstohaveabandonedthatargumentasthelitigation x progressed.InlightoftheSupremeCourt'srecentstatementthat @ a"Tribemaynotsueunder1983tovindicatethesovereignright" X oftribalsovereignimmunity,sXCXXtXC_Inyo_ԀCountyv.Paiute-Shoshone   Indians,538U.S.701,712(2003),#tXCXXsXC#theBandprobablywouldnothave  acolorable1983argumenthere.Atanyrate,initsappellate `  brief,theBandbarelymentions1983,andwedeemanypotential ( x 1983argumenttobeforfeited.SeeUnitedStatesv.  @ _Caraballo_-Cruz,52F.3d390,393(1stCir.1995).*D+M (_24   ," hp x ,23  ..  5+ ` hp x 5  *A+M (_23  ` ) hp x )23  ..  5+ ` hp x 5  *>+M (_22   &hhp x &23  ..  5+ ` hp x 5  *;+M (_21   #p x #23  ..  5+ ` hp x 5  *8+M (_20  h  p x 23  ..  5+ ` hp x 5  *5+M (_19   pp x 23  ..  5+ ` hp x 5  *2+M (_18    x 23  ..  5+ ` hp x 5  * (_1723  Ԁ*GM (_16   /%` ` hp x /23  Ԁ  5+ ` hp x 5  *DM (_15   ," hp x ,23  Ԁ  5+ ` hp x 5  *AM (_14  ` ) hp x )23  Ԁ  5+ ` hp x 5  *>M (_13   &hhp x &23  Ԁ  5+ ` hp x 5  *;M (_12   #p x #23  Ԁ  5+ ` hp x 5  *8M (_11  h  p x 23  Ԁ  5+ ` hp x 5  *5M (_10   pp x 23  Ԁ  5+ ` hp x 5  (2M &_9    x 23  Ԁ  5+ ` hp x 5  ( &_823  (GM &_7   /%` ` hp x /23   5+ ` hp x 5  (DM &_6   ," hp x ,23   5+ ` hp x 5  (AM &_5  ` ) hp x )23   5+ ` hp x 5  (>M &_4   &hhp x &23   5+ ` hp x 5  (;M &_3   #p x #23   5+ ` hp x 5  (8M &_2  h  p x 23   5+ ` hp x 5  (5M &_1   pp x 23   5+ ` hp x 5  &2M $_    x 23   5+ ` hp x 5  0.Normal<:Definition T<AA:Definition L , 5+ ` hp x 5  5+ ` hp x 586Definition(''&H1      (&H2  (&H3  (&H4 XXX (&H5  (&H6  20Address8MM6Blockquote , , 5+ ` hp x 5   5+ ` hp x 5,*CITE,dl*CODEKl<6X9`(Courier NewKSm\  `&Times New RomanS42Emphasis64Hyperlink    <:FollowedHype    4go2Keyboard Kl<6X9`(Courier NewKSm\  `&Times New RomanS <:Preformatted/%  ,Kk %#/Kl<6X9`(Courier NewKSm\  `&Times New RomanS/%  ,Kk %#/<:zBottom of 7`(X7  ?n%2A`Arial?  Sm\  `&Times New RomanS7a(X7&  d d_)1dxd'dxd<:zTop of For7c(X7  ?n%2A`Arial?  Sm\  `&Times New RomanS7a(X7_)2dxd0KS.SampleKl<6X9`(Courier NewKSm\  `&Times New RomanS0.Strong 8dl6TypewriterKl<6X9`(Courier NewKSm\  `&Times New RomanS42Variable: 8HTML MarkupB      2 0CommentB  9:;<=>?@ 35;AGMSY_11.1.1.1.1.1.1.1.(O$<6X9`(Courier New\  `&Times New Roman%2A`Arial d _ pUttttttXCXt      7    sXCXXtXCTheBandapparentlyconcedesthatCountVdoesnotpresenta  federalclaim.Weaddresslaterthepossibility(notarguedbythe x state)thatthefederalcourtsshouldabstainpendingresolutionof @ thestatelawclaim,whichmightrenderresolutionofthefederal X issuesunnecessary.SeeinfraPartVI.3#37=CIQYag1.a.i.(1)(a)(i)1)a)qi)<4 9Z+.Courier New Regular<5 9Z+ Courier New  n pU$ttttttXCXt      28    _WeexpressnoviewonwhethertheBandhasallegedathreat  ofenforcementsufficienttoestablishthesubstantiveelementsof x thesXCXXtXCExparteYoung#tXCXXsXC#Ԁclaimorfortheexerciseofthedistrict @  court'sequitablediscretion.   fn_no1362discussion   pU$ttttttXCXt      8    _ApparentlysXCXXtXCԀtherewassomeconfusionastowhetherthe  AroostookBandof_Micmacs_Ԁwas#tXCXXsXC#sXCXXtXCdistinc#tXCXXsXC#sXCXXtXCt#tXCXXsXC#ԀfromthelargerCanadian x Bandof_Micmacs_.SeegenerallyS.Rep.No.101291(1990).Level 1Level 2Level 3Level 4Level 5  pU$ttttttXCXt      38    _AlthoughtheBand'spositiononthispointmaybeforeclosed  by_Fellencer_,164F.3dat711n.3,andwehavethediscretionto x affirmthedistrictcourt'sdismissalonanybasissupportedbythe @ record,_Willhauck_v._Halpin_,953F.2d689,704(1stCir.1991),we X declinetoexercisethatdiscretionhere.Becauseofthedistrict   court'sdisposition,theBandunderstandablydevoteditsarguments  onappealtothequestionof_justiciability_.Consequently,wewill `  not_pretermit_ԀtheBand'scasebydecidingthemeritsbeforethe ( x districtcourthasdoneso.Level 1Level 2Level 3Level 4Level 5Level 1Level 2Level 3Level 4Level 5fn_nomerits ; pU$ttttttXCXt      4    _Again,themeritsarenotrelevanthere.-a&OLE 2.0 Box <=8C HKKKK(y39.$  Q!tOtOtO{tO  ݫ<6X9`("Courier NewTTXXx6X@DQX@<6X9`(CourierTTXXw6X@QX@vr Z6Times New Roman RegularTABLE A- -oooo)!dxdx.Courier New Regular y pU$ttttttXCXt      14    _sXCXXtXCInGraham,thestate'scauseofactionderivedfromOklahoma  taxlaw.Thetriberemovedtofederalcourt#tXCXXsXC #sXCXXtXCԀandraisedtribal x sovereignimmunityasadefense.See489U.S.at839.#tXCXXsXC#( $ Figure  1   0#uXd#       pU$ttttttXCXt      20    _AlthoughtheBandcollapsesthetwoinitsreplybrief,we  findithelpfultokeepthemanalyticallyseparatesincetheyarise x fromdifferentsources.  pU$ttttttXCXt      33    _Asananalogy,statesovereignimmunityappliestocertain  federaladministrativeproceedings.SeeS.C.StatePortsAuth., x 535U.S.at76061.   < pU$ttttttXCXt      24    _sXCXXtXC"TheBandmayorganizeforitscommonwelfareandadoptan  appropriateinstrumentinwritingtogoverntheaffairsoftheBand x whenactinginitsgovernmentalcapacity."105Stat.at1148.#tXCXXsXC #  pU$ttttttXCXt      23    _Whetheraparticularstateinterestjustifiestheassertion  ofstateauthority"isnotdependentonmechanicalorabsolute x conceptionsofstateortribalsovereignty,buthascalledfora @ particularizedinquiryintothenatureofthestate,federal,and X tribalinterestsatstake."WhiteMountainApacheTribev.   _Bracker_,448U.S.136,145(1980).Forexample,theCourthasheld  thatastatecannotrequireIndianvendorsoperatingonreservation `  landtocollectstatecigarettesalestaxfromIndianpurchasers, ( x butitcanrequirethemtocollectthattaxfromnonIndian  @ purchasers.SeeMoev.ConfederatedSalish&_Kootenai_ԀTribesof    FlatheadReservation,425U.S.463,48083(1976). p pU$ttttttXCXt      3    _Thecomplaintreliesonthreesimilarlynamedbutdistinct  doctrines:tribalsovereignty,tribalsovereignimmunity,anda x statutoryrighttoselfgovernance.Althoughweexplainthe @ differencesbetweenthesebelowindetail,seesXCXXtXCinfra#tXCXXsXC8#sXCXXtXC#tXCXXsXC#Parts_IV.B_ԄC, X weprovidethumbnaildefinitionshere.Tribalsovereigntyisa   commonlawdoctrinerecognizingtribes'inherentpowerstoself  govern,includingthepowertodeterminethestructureandinternal `  operationsofthegoverningbodyitself,andexemptingtribesfrom ( x statelawthatwouldotherwiseinfringeuponthissovereignty.  @  Tribalsovereignimmunityisacommonlawdoctrineprovidingthat  tribesareimmunefromlawsuitsorquasijudicialproceedings x withouttheirconsentorCongressionalwaiver.Finally,theBand @ claimsastatutoryrighttoselfgovernancederivingfromsXCXXtXCSection X 7(a)#tXCXXsXC#ԀoftheFederalMicmacSettlementAct,whichprovidesthatthe   Band"sXCXXtXCmayorganizeforitscommonwelfareand...act[]inits  governmentalcapacity."#tXCXXsXC#sXCXXtXC105Stat.at1148.AccordingtotheBand, `  thisprovisionreaffirmsandcodifies#tXCXXsXCm#thecommonlawdoctrineof ( x tribalsovereigntyasitappliestotheBand.  pU$ttttttXCXt      13    _sXCXXtXCInPenobscotNationI/II#tXCXXsXC #sXCXXtXC,papercompaniesthreatenedtosue  twotribesinMainecourttocompelthemtoturnovercertain x documentspursuanttostatelaw.Thetribessuedfirstinfederal @ court,"seekinganinjunctionagainstanystatecourtlawsuitand X adeclaratoryjudgmentthattheMaineFreedomofAccessAct   violates'theirfederalrighttobefreeofsuchstate  regulation.'"PenobscotNationI,106F.Supp.2dat82(citation `  omitted).#tXCXXsXCs#  pU$ttttttXCXt      18    _In_Wycoff_,theplaintiff(whichspecializedintransporting  film)filedafederalactionagainstastateagency,seeking"(1) x adeclaratoryjudgmentthat[its]carriageofmotionpicturefilm @ andnewsreelsbetweenpointsinUtahconstitutesinterstate X commerce;[and](2)thatthePublicServiceCommissionofUtahand   itsmembersbeforeverenjoinedfrominterferingwithsuch  transportationoverroutesauthorizedbytheInterstateCommerce `  Commission."sXCXXtXCId.#tXCXXsXC#Ԁat239. 4 pU$ttttttXCXt      16    _FranchiseTaxBoarditselfrecognizedthathadthetrust  (defendantinthestatecourtaction)broughtansXCXXtXCExparteYoung#tXCXXsXC# x actioninsteadofremovingtofederalcourt,theoutcomemightwell @ havebeendifferent: X 8  sXCXXtXC#tXCXXsXC#[Defendant]_CLVT_Ԁmighthavebeenabletoobtainfederal  jurisdictionunderthedoctrineappliedinsomecases `  thatapersonsubjecttoaschemeoffederalregulation ( x maysueinfederalcourttoenjoinapplicationtohimof  @ conflictingstateregulations,andadeclaratoryjudgment    actionbythesamepersondoesnotnecessarilyrunafoul    ofthe_Skelly_ԀOildoctrine.H     463U.S.at2021n.20.  pU$ttttttXCXt      21    _Thephrase"tribalselfgovernment"hasbeenusedintwo  distinctways.Inabroadsense,itcanmeanatribe'spowerto x regulatetheconductoftribalmembers.See,e.g.,Wheeler,435 @ U.S.at322("Theirrightofinternalself-governmentincludesthe X righttoprescribelawsapplicabletotribemembersandtoenforce   thoselawsbycriminalsanctions.").WedonotunderstandtheBand  toclaimthatithasthispower.Asecond,narrowersensemeans `  thetribe'spowertodeterminethestructureandinternal ( x operationsofthegoverningbodyitself.See,e.g.,Handbookof  @ FederalIndianLaw,supra,at247.Thisisthemeaningwe    emphasize. ! pU$ttttttXCXt      15    _  InFranchiseTaxBoard,astatetaxagency,seekingto  collectunpaidtaxesfromunionmembers,attemptedtolevythesums x fromthemembers'accountsintheunion'svacationtrust.The @ trustresisted,claimingthattheaccountswereprotectedfrom X stateleviesbytheEmployeeRetirementIncomeSecurityActof1974   (ERISA),29U.S.C.1144(a).Theagencysuedthetrustinstate  courtfortheunpaidsumsandadeclaratoryjudgmentthatERISAdid `  notpreemptthestate'sauthoritytolevyagainstthetrust;the ( x trustremovedtofederalcourt.See463U.S.at37.TheSupreme  @ Courtruledthatthestate'sclaimfordamagesaroseunderstate    law,andfederallawaroseonlyasadefense.Seeid.at1314.    Regardingthestate'sdeclaratoryjudgmentclaim,theCourtheld H   thatastatelawclaimwithafederallawdefensecannotbe `  convertedtoafederalclaimbyseekingadeclaratoryjudgmentthat (  thefederaldefensedoesnotapply.Seeid.at1422. # pU$ttttttXCXt      32    _TheBand'sbriefsarenotalwayspreciseinthisdistinction,  butthecomplaintadequatelyseparatestheconcepts.CountI x allegesthattheCommission'sapplicationofthe_MHRA_Ԁandthe_MWPA_ @ totheBandviolatesits"retainedinherenttribalsovereignty"and X theFederalMicmacSettlementAct.CountII,bycontrast,alleges   that"[_t]he_ԀBand'stribalsovereignimmunitysXCXXtXC...#tXCXXsXCC#Ԁbarsthe   enforcementofthe_MHRA_Ԁandthe_MWPA_ԀagainsttheBand."fn_jxonly  pU$ttttttXCXt      31    _ w Becauseweholdthatthedistrictcourthadjurisdiction  under1331,weneednotdecidewhether1362jurisdictionwould x alsobeavailable.  pU$ttttttXCXt      17    _AsonecommentatoronfederaljurisdictionintheIndianlaw  contexthasnoted: x 8  sXCXXtXCGrahamsimplyexemplifiestheparadoxforthewell X pleadedcomplaintrulepresentedbyExparteYoung   actions.HadtheTribeproceededinfederalcourtto  seekinjunctivereliefagainstthestateofficers `  imposingthedisputedtax,theTribewouldhaveinvoked ( x federalquestionjurisdiction,foritsaffirmativeclaim  @ forreliefwouldhavebeenacognizablefederalcauseof    actionunderExparteYoung,thereby'arisingunder'    federallaw.ButbecausetheTribeinsteadtriedto H   removethestatecourtaction,itwasbarredbythewell `  pleadedcomplaintrule.(    _Kaighn_ԀSmith,Jr.,FederalCourts,StatePower,andIndianTribes: h  ConfrontingtheWellPleadedComplaintRule,35N.M.L.Rev.__,__ 0  (43)(forthcoming2005).#tXCXXsXC#  pU$ttttttXCXt      39    Compare,e.g.,_Fireman'sFundIns.Co.v.CityofLodi,302  F.3d928,939n.12(9thCir.2002)(holdingthat"Pullman x abstentionisnotappropriatewhenthefederalquestionatstakeis @ oneoffederalpreemption")with__ԀFleetBank,N.A.v.Burke,160 X F.3d883,89093(2dCir.1998)(holdingtheopposite).  pU$ttttttXCXt      26    _sXCXXtXCApparentlythisprovisionwasaddedrelativelylateinthe  process,andtheBanddidnotrealizethatcertificationwas x required#tXCXXsXC #.Theoriginalbillprovidedthatthebillwouldbecome @ effectiveuponenactmentoflegislationbytheUnitedStates,and X nothingintheoriginalbillrequiredtheBandtocertifyits   assent.TheamendmentrequiringcertificationbytheBandforthe  legislationtobecomeeffectivewasaddedjusttendaysbeforethe `  billwaspassed.AccordingtoawitnessthattheBandprovidedto ( x testifyonitsbehalfpursuanttoFed.R.Civ.P.30(b)(6),the  @ Banddidnotsendinthewrittencertificationonlybecauseitwas    nevertoldaboutthecertificationrequirementanddidnotknow    aboutit.However,aftertheMainelegislaturepassedtheAct,the H   BandsupporteditsratificationbeforeCongress,anddidnot `  expressanyconcernaboutthestateAct'svalidity.  pU$ttttttXCXt      27    _Unlike_MICSA_,theFederalMicmacSettlementActcontainsno  expressseverabilityclause.See25U.S.C.1734(_MICSA_).  pU$ttttttXCXt      34    _Again,weneednotdecidewhether1362wouldapply.See  supranote7w(fn_no1362discussion731  . i pU$ttttttXCXt      36    _Tobefair,theCommissionwasnotapartyin_Boudman_.fn_ftb  pU$ttttttXCXt      12    _InLocalUnionNo.12004,asupervisorfiledacomplaint  againstalaborunionwiththeMassachusettsCommissionAgainst x Discrimination("_MCAD_")basedonallegedsexualharassmentduring @ thecourseofalabordispute.377F.3dat6970._MCAD_Ԁrejected X theunion'sargumentthatthecomplaintwaspreemptedbyfederal   laborlaw.Id.at7071.Theunionthenfiledafederalaction  against_MCAD_,threecommissioners,andthecomplainant,seekingan `  injunctionandadeclaratoryjudgmentthat_MCAD_'sproceedingswere ( x preemptedbyfederallaw.Id.at71.Weheldthattheunion's  @ claimsagainst"astateadministrativeagencyfordeclaratoryand    injunctiverelief,allegingthattheagencyhasactedinamanner    inconsistentwithfederallaw,"assertedanExparteYoungclaim H   andthussatisfiedthewellpleadedcomplaintrule.Id.at75.  pU$ttttttXCXt      40    Indeed,_TsXCXXtXCtheExparteYoung#tXCXXsXC#Ԁcauseofactionuponwhichthe  complaintdependswouldnotbeavailableagainsttheindividual x defendantssXCXXtXC.See#tXCXXsXC #sXCXXtXCPenobscotNationI,106F.Supp.2dat83n.4.#tXCXXsXC_#  pU$ttttttXCXt      35    _"Dualfiling"referstothepracticebywhichacomplainant  mayfileachargewithastate_antidiscrimination_Ԁagencyalleging x violationsofbothstateandfederallaw.Thestateagencythen @ filesachargewiththeEEOConthecomplainant'sbehalf,but X processesthecomplaintitselffirst.See42U.S.C.2000e5(b)   (e)(describinghowdualfiledchargesaretreatedforpurposesof  determiningwhetherreasonablecauseexists,timeforfiling `   charges,andotherpurposes).  pU$ttttttXCXt      25    _WeexpressnoviewonwhethertheFederalMicmacSettlement  Act'sapparentdifferencesfrom_MICSA_ԀortheMaineImplementingAct x actuallycreateaninconsistency,letaloneaconflicttowhich @ sXCXXtXCSection11oftheFederalMicmacSettlementActwouldapply.We X simplynotethatitmaybenecessarytoresolvethisquestion#tXCXXsXC*#Ԁin   determiningthesubstantivereachofSection7(a)ofthesXCXXtXCFederal  MicmacSettlementAct.#tXCXXsXCO#  pU$ttttttXCXt      9    _Wehavealsoassumedthat_MICSA_Ԁimplicitlyincorporatesinto  federallawthe"internaltribalmatters"exceptionoftheMaine x ImplementingActasitappliestothe_Penobscots_Ԁandthe @ Passamaquoddy.SeesXCXXtXCPenobscotNationII#tXCXXsXCY#,254F.3dat32021.  pU$ttttttXCXt      41    _Ifthedistrictcourtdeterminesthattheindividual  defendantsneednot(orcannot)bejoinedpursuanttoFed.R.Civ. x P.19(a),anddecidesagaintodismissthecomplaintastothem, @ thecourtshouldalsoconsideranytimelyapplicationbythose X individualstointerveneunderFed.R.Civ.P.24. , pU$ttttttXCXt      22    _InLara,theCourtdeterminedthecontinuingviabilityofone  ofitsIndianlawdecisionsthatCongresshadpurportedtooverrule x bystatute.InsXCXXtXC_Duro_v.Reina,495U.S.676(1990),theCourthad @ heldthattribalsovereigntydoesnotempoweratribetobringa X criminalprosecutionagainstnonmemberIndians.After_Duro_,   Congressenactedastatute"'_recogniz[ing_]and_affirm[ing_]'the  'inherent'authorityofatribe"todo#tXCXXsXC#justthat.Lara,124S.Ct. `  at1631(quoting25U.S.C.1301(2))(alterationsinoriginal). ( x TheLaraCourtconcludedthat_Duro_andothercaseslimningthe  @  boundsofretainedtribalsovereigntywereconstruingfederal  commonlaw,andthatCongresscould"change'judiciallymade' x federalIndianlaw"andadjustthatsovereignty.124S.Ct.at @ 1637(citationomitted). P pU$ttttttXCXt      37    WhiletheBandarguablystandsinadifferentlegalposition  thantheMaliseetsinsomerespects,weunderstandthedistrict x courttohavemeantthat,whateverthedifferencesbetweenthose @ twotribes,theimpactoftheTitleVIIexemptionwouldbe X identical.  Q!tttt  _      ?+ ` Xp x (#X?TRY,3'X3' Letter 3' Letter3'T ? * !l   p--v@-#OY8UnitedStatesCourtofAppeals¸l  FortheFirstCircuit sP/¸sXCXsP/ @ Ao) ` dE<` A L No.041517     @@*0 @ AROOSTOOKBANDOF_MICMACS_, + {  @@ Plaintiff,Appellant,   @@tt)v. K  @@PATRICIAE.RYAN,EXECUTIVEDIRECTOR,MAINEHUMANRIGHTS +  COMMISSION;LINDAE._ABROMSON_,WARRENC.KESSLER,KIMC._MILLICK_,   ANDPAULK.VESTAL,JR.,MEMBERS,MAINEHUMANRIGHTSCOMMISSION; k  LISAGARDINER;TAMMY_CONDON_;BEVERLY_AYOOB_, 3 @@Defendants,Appellees.  Ao) ` dE<R` A S @@ APPEALFROMTHEUNITEDSTATESDISTRICTCOURT Q FORTHEDISTRICTOFMAINE  +@@44[Hon.MargaretJ._Kravchuk_,U.S.MagistrateJudge] Y Ao) ` dE<` A 9 @@'Before "  x @@ Lipez,CircuitJudge, _$ andCoffinandCyr,SeniorCircuitJudges. 'w% Ao) ` dE< ` A  '      ` DouglasJ._Luckerman_,withwhomLawOfficeofDouglasJ. !) _Luckerman_wasonbrief,andGregoryP._Dorr_,withwhomFarrell, V"* Rosenblatt&Russellwasonbrief,forappellant. #n+  #  ` G.StevenRowe,AttorneyGeneral,withwhomChristopher #6, C._Taub_,AssistantAttorneyGeneral,andPaulStern,Deputy $- AttorneyGeneral,wereonbrief,forappellees. v% .  *oddd Xdd Xdd X(#(#,( dd ,( dd ,( dd +  ^)$3^)$   SI)%4 @38454@SApril13,2005 R+&7  RHC,2(9" @38454 @ R ," )%: ? ,8 8CXXdd8   _* ! ` LIPEZ,CircuitJudge. Thiscaserequiresustodecide   whetherafederalcourthasjurisdictiontohearanIndiantribe's D suittostopastateagencyfrominvestigatingtribalemployees' $ complaintsofworkplacediscrimination.TheMaineHumanRights d  Commissionhasinvestigatedcomplaintsbythreeformeremployeesof  D theAroostookBandofMicmacs,andassertsthatithasthe    authoritytoinvestigateanyfuturecomplaints,pursuanttoMaine d  antidiscriminationlaw.TheBandfiledthisactionforinjunctive   anddeclaratoryreliefagainsttheCommission'sinvestigations, 4  arguingthatsuchinvestigationsimpermissiblyencroachuponthe  Band'sinherenttribalsovereignty,congressionallyaffirmedright T toselfgovernancewithoutstateinterference,andsovereign 4 immunityfromjudicialorquasijudicialproceedings.Thedistrict t courtconcludedthattheBand'scomplaintdidnotinvokearightto T reliefunderfederallaw,butratherinvokedaffirmativefederal  defensestostatelawactions,andthereforedidnotsatisfythe $t wellpleadedcomplaintrule.Consequently,thecourtdismissedthe   actionforlackofsubjectmatterjurisdiction.Wereverse. D"    I.   $$  ` TheAroostookBandofMicmacsisafederallyrecognized d"& Indiantribe.Overafourmonthspanin2001,theBandfiredthree #D( tribalemployees:ChiefFinancialOfficerLisaGardiner,Compliance % * OfficerTammyCondon,andHousingDirectorBeverlyAyoob.Pursuant 'd", tointernaltribalprocedure,GardinerandCondonappealedthe (#. Band'sterminationdecisionstotheBand'sTribalCouncil,claiming 4*%0 thattheywereterminatedinretaliationforprotectedactivities; +'2 theTribalCouncilaffirmedtheirterminations.Ayoob,whohad  filedasexualharassmentchargewiththeTribalCouncilbefore @ beingterminated,didnotchallengehertermination.   1          ` ThethreeexemployeesturnedtotheMaineHumanRights `  Commission,astateagencychargedwith"investigatingallformsof  @ invidiousdiscrimination."Me.Rev.Stat.Ann.tit.5,4566.    Uponreceiptofaprivatecomplaintofdiscrimination,the `  Commissionconductsapreliminaryinvestigationto"determine   whethertherearereasonablegroundstobelievethatunlawful 0  discriminationhasoccurred."Id.4612(1)(B).Thetargetofthe  investigationmustcooperate: P 8 ` [T]hecommission...shallhaveaccessat 0 allreasonabletimestopremises,records,  documents,individualsandotherevidenceor p possiblesourcesofevidenceandmayexamine, 8 recordandcopythosematerialsandtakeand P recordthetestimonyorstatementsofsuch  personsasarereasonablynecessaryforthe  furtheranceoftheinvestigation.The X commissionmayissuesubpoenastocompel  p accesstoorproductionofthosematerialsor 8 theappearanceofthosepersons,...andmay   serveinterrogatoriesonarespondenttothe x! sameextentasinterrogatoriesservedinaid @" ofacivilactionintheSuperiorCourt. X#` x` x Id.IftheCommissiondeterminesthatthereare"reasonable !% groundstobelievethatunlawfuldiscriminationhasoccurred,"it (#x' firstattemptstobrokeraconciliation.Id.4612(3).If $ ) conciliationfails,theCommissionmay"fileintheSuperiorCourt H&!+ acivilactionseekingsuchreliefasisappropriate,including '(#- temporaryrestrainingorders."Id.4612(4).Whetherornotit h)$/ OY    doesso,"[t]hecomplaintandevidencecollectedduringthe  investigationofthecomplaint...shallbecomeamatterof @ publicrecordattheconclusionoftheinvestigation....[and]   maybeusedasevidenceinanysubsequentproceeding,civilor `  criminal."Id.4612(1)(B).IftheCommissiondoesnotitself  @ fileacivilactionanditusuallydoesnotthecomplainant    mayfileanactionherself.Id.4621.+   2      ׀ `   ` Inthefallof2001,GardinerandCondonfiledcomplaints   withtheCommissionallegingemploymentdiscriminationonthebasis 0  ofrace,color,andnationalorigin,aswellasretaliation,under  theMaineHumanRightsAct(MHRA),Me.Rev.Stat.Ann.tit.5, P 45514634,andtheMaineWhistleblowers'ProtectionAct(MWPA), 0 Me.Rev.Stat.Ann.tit.26,831840.Inthesummerandfallof p 2002,Ayoobfiledtwocomplaintsallegingemploymentdiscrimination P andretaliationundertheMHRAandMWPA.Ineachcase,shortly  afterreceivingtheindividual'scomplaint,theCommissionfiled  p chargesonthecomplainant'sbehalfwiththeUnitedStatesEqual   EmploymentOpportunityCommission(EEOC)underTitleVIIofthe @" CivilRightsActof1964,42U.S.C.2000e5.  $  ` TheBandaskedtheCommissiontodismissallfour `"& complaintsonthegroundsthatitlackedjurisdictionoverthe #@( Band.TheCommissionrefused,concludingthatithadjurisdiction % * becausetheBandissubjecttotheMHRA,theMWPA,and,for  GardinerandCondon'scomplaints,TitleVII.Itinvestigatedthe @ complaints,andonatleasttwooccasionsissueddocumentrequests   totheBandseekingavarietyoftribalpersonneldocuments.The `  Bandcompliedwiththoserequests.  @  ` InJanuary2003,theCommission'sinvestigatorissueda    reportsuggestingthattherewerenoreasonablegroundstobelieve `  thattheBandhaddiscriminatedorretaliatedagainstGardineror   Condon.BeforethefullCommissioncouldruleonthereport,the 0  BandfiledacomplaintintheUnitedStatesDistrictCourtforthe  DistrictofMaineagainsttheexecutivedirectorandmembersofthe P Commission(collectively,"Maine"),andthethreeindividual 0 complainants,seekingdeclaratoryandinjunctivereliefdirecting p theCommissionto(1)dismissthecomplaintsonthegroundthatthe P BandisnotsubjecttotheMHRAorMWPA,and(2)stopfiling  complaintsagainsttheBandwiththeEEOC.Thecomplaint,as  p amended,pledfiveclaims:thattheenforcementoftheMHRAand   MWPAagainsttheBandviolatesitsinherenttribalsovereigntyand @" statutorilycodifiedrighttoselfgovernance(CountI);thatthe  $ enforcementofthesestatelawsagainsttheBandviolatesits `"& tribalsovereignimmunity(CountII);   3      ׀thattheBandisexemptfrom #@( TitleVII(CountIII);thattheBand'sexemptionfromTitleVII  preemptsstateantidiscriminationlaw,andso,regardlessofwhat @ theMHRAandMWPAsay,theBandisnotsubjecttothem(CountIV);   andthat,evenundertheMHRAandMWPA'sownterms,theBandisnot `  an"employer"(CountV).  @  ` Shortlyafterthecomplaintwasfiled,theCommission    determinedthat,contrarytoitsinvestigator'sinitialreport, `  therewerereasonablegroundstobelievethatGardinerandCondon   hadbeenretaliatedagainstbasedonprotectedconduct.Meanwhile, 0  GardinerandCondonfiledsuitagainsttheBandinAroostookCounty  SuperiorCourt.   4      ׀Thatcourtstayedtheactionpendingtheoutcome P ofthefederallitigation..(    5      ׀ 0  ` Infederalcourt,thepartiesconsentedtoadjudication p byaUnitedStatesMagistrateJudge,andcrossmovedforsummary P judgment.AlthoughbothpartiesaddressedthemeritsoftheBand's  claims,Mainealsoarguedthatthelawsuitshouldbedismissedfor  p lackofsubjectmatterjurisdiction.    6      ׀InFebruary2004,the   districtcourtruledthatitlackedsubjectmatterjurisdiction  overthecomplaint.SeeAroostookBandofMicmacsv.Exec.Dir. @ Me.HumanRightsComm'n,307F.Supp.2d95,96(D.Me.2004)   ("Micmacs").Specifically,thedistrictcourtconcludedthat `  CountsIandIIdidnotraisequestions"arisingunder"federallaw  @ asrequiredbytheapplicablejurisdictionalstatutes,andthat    CountsIIIandIVdidnotallegeajusticiablecaseor `  controversy.p   7      ׀Consequently,thecourtdismissedtheentireaction.   SeeFed.R.Civ.P.12(h)(3)(courtmustdismissactionupon 0  determining,atanypoint,thatitlackssubjectmatter  jurisdiction).TheBandtimelyappealed. P    &  II.  0 _< ` ThetribalstaterelationshipbetweenMaineandthe p Indiantribeslocatedwithinitsbordersiscomplex.'xk<TheBand's P relationshipwiththestateisparticularlycomplex.Weprovidea  briefsummaryoftherecenthistoryofthatrelationship,and  p includesomebackgroundconcerningthreeotherMainetribes,toset    thestageforthelegalanalysisthatfollows. @" 0 `  &   A. ` The1980Legislation ` (#` (#  ` Inthe1970s,twotribesthePenobscotNationandthe @ PassamaquoddyTribe'>ԀfiledsuitclaimingmuchofMaineastheir   ancestralhomelands.SeegenerallyPenobscotNationv.Fellencer, `  164F.3d706,70708(1stCir.1999)(recountinghistory).Neither  @ tribewasfederallyrecognizedatthatpoint.TheAroostookBand    ofMicmacswasnotrepresentedbycounselatthetimeandwasnot `  apartytothelitigation.y   8          ` In1980,withtheaidoftheUnitedStates,the 0  PenobscotsandthePassamaquoddyreachedacompromisewithMaine.  Athirdtribe,theHoultonBandofMaliseetIndians,whichhadnot P filedsuitbutwasrepresentedbycounselandhadapotential 0 claim,waslaterincludedinthecompromise.SeeS.Rep.No.101 p 291(1990).TheresultingsettlementwasembodiedintheMaine P ImplementingAct,Me.Rev.Stat.Ann.tit.30,620114;seealso  25U.S.C.1721(a)(8)("TheStateofMaine,withtheagreementof  p thePassamaquoddyTribeandthePenobscotNation,hasenacted   legislationdefiningtherelationshipbetweenthePassamaquoddy @" Tribe,thePenobscotNation,andtheirmembers,andtheStateof  $ Maine.");HoultonBandofMaliseetIndiansv.Me.HumanRights `"& Comm'n,960F.Supp.449,451-52(D.Me.1997). #@(  ` UndertheActwhichaffected"allIndians,Indian % * nations,andtribesandbandsofIndiansintheState,"Me.Rev. '`", Stat.Ann.tit.30,6204,notjustthenamedtribesthe (#. PenobscotsandthePassamaquoddyreceivedsomewhatmore  advantageoustermsthantheMaliseets.ThePenobscotsandthe @ Passamaquoddyobtainedterritoryandallthegovernmentalrights   andpowersofmunicipalitieswithinMaine.Seeid.6205,6206, `  6211.Bycontrast,theMaliseetsreceivedonlylandheldintrust  @ forthembytheUnitedStates,andnomunicipalpowers.Seeid.    6205A,6206A. `   ` Inexchangeforwhatthetribesreceived,and"partlyas   aresultoftheTribes'disputedstatus,theStateofMaine,as 0  partofthesettlement,obtainedlegalauthorityovertheTribes  exceedingtheusualstateauthorityovernativeAmericantribes." P PenobscotNationv.Georgia-Pac.Corp.,254F.3d317,320(1stCir. 0 2001)("PenobscotNationII"),aff'g106F.Supp.2d81,8283(D. p Me.2000)("PenobscotNationI").Here,too,thetribesdidnot P receiveequallyfavorabletreatment.Forreasonsthatwillbecome  apparentlater,wehighlightthespecialstatusoftheMaliseets.  p  ` BeforethepassageoftheMaineImplementingAct,neither   MainenortheUnitedStateshadofficiallyrecognizedthe @" Maliseets,andMainewasreluctanttoaccordthemspecialstatus.  $ Instead,theActsubjectedtheMaliseetstoMainelawtoagreater `"& degreethanthePenobscotsorthePassamaquoddy.TheMaliseets #@( weresubjecttoadefaultclauseapplicabletoallIndiantribes: % * 8 `   ` ExceptasotherwiseprovidedinthisAct,all '`", Indians,Indiannations,andtribesandbands '(#- ofIndiansintheState...shallbesubject (#. tothelawsoftheStateandtotheciviland h)$/ criminaljurisdictionofthecourtsofthe 0*%0 Statetothesameextentasanyotherperson *H&1 orlandsorothernaturalresourcestherein.+'2` x` x  ,'3 NMe.Rev.Stat.Ann.tit.30,6204.However,thePenobscotsand  Passamaquoddybenefittedfromanimportantexception:forthosetwo @ tribes,"internaltribalmatters,including...tribal   organization,[and]tribalgovernment...shallnotbesubjectto `  regulationbytheState."Id.6206(1).Bycontrast,the  @ Maliseetsreceivednosuchprivilege.Rather,theActemphasized    that"[t]heHoultonBandofMaliseetIndiansanditslandswillbe `  whollysubjecttothelawsoftheState."Id.6202.    ` CongressratifiedthesettlementthroughtheMaineIndian 0  ClaimsSettlementAct("MICSA"),25U.S.C.17211735.Among  MICSA'spurposeswere"toratifytheMaineImplementingAct"and P "toconfirmthatallotherIndians,Indiannationsandtribesand 0 bandsofIndiansnoworhereafterexistingorrecognizedinthe p StateofMaineareandshallbesubjecttoalllawsoftheStateof P Maine."Id.1721(b)(3)(4).MICSAreiteratedthedistinction  betweentheMaliseetsandtheothertwotribesastoapplicability  p ofMainelaw:   8 `   ` Exceptasprovidedin[twoprovisionsnot @" relevanthere],allIndians,Indiannations,  X# ortribesorbandsofIndiansintheStateof  $ Maine,otherthanthePassamaquoddyTribe,the !% PenobscotNation,andtheirmembers... `"& shallbesubjecttothecivilandcriminal (#x' jurisdictionoftheState,thelawsofthe #@( State,andthecivilandcriminaljurisdiction $ ) ofthecourtsoftheState,tothesameextent % * asanyotherpersonorlandtherein.H&!+` x` x xVId.1725(a).   9      ׀ '(#-  & @ B.0 ` TheMicmacLegislation ` (#` (#  ` Approximatelytenyearslater,theBandfiledaboriginal @ landclaimsagainstMaine.In1989,MaineandtheBandreacheda   settlementthatwasmemorializedintheMicmac'@YSettlementAct,Me. `  Rev.Stat.Ann.tit.30,72017207.TheActgenerallyaccorded  @ theBandthesamestatusastheMaliseets,notthegreaterpowers    andautonomyenjoyedbythePenobscotsandthePassamaquoddy.See `  id.7203(subjectingBandtostatelawsandcourtjurisdiction   withoutexception),7204(landtobeheldintrustbyUnited 0  States),7205(nomunicipalpowersforBand).   ` In1991,atthebehestofbothMaineandtheBand, P CongressenactedtheAroostookBandofMicmacsSettlementAct 0 ("FederalMicmacSettlementAct"),Pub.L.No.102171,105Stat. p 1143(codifiedat25U.S.C.1721note).TheFederalMicmac P SettlementActexplainedthat"[t]heBandwasnotreferredtoin  [MICSA]becausehistoricaldocumentationoftheMicmacpresencein  p Mainewasnotavailableatthattime."Id.2(a)(2),105Stat.at   1143.Nowthatsuchdocumentationwasavailable,Congressfound @" that"[t]heAroostookBandofMicmacs,inbothitshistoryandits  $ presenceinMaine,issimilartotheHoultonBandofMaliseet `"& Indiansandwouldhavereceivedsimilartreatmentunder[MICSA]if #@( theinformationavailabletodayhadbeenavailabletoCongressand % * thepartiesatthattime."Id.2(a)(4).Consequently,the '`", FederalMicmacSettlementActaimedto"affordtheAroostookBand (#. ofMicmacsthesamesettlementprovidedtotheHoultonBandof 0*%0 MaliseetIndiansforthesettlementofthatBand'sclaims,tothe +'2 extent[theMicmacs]wouldhavebenefitedfrominclusionin  [MICSA]."Id.2(a)(5).Onthisbasis,Congress"ratif[ied]the @ [state]MicmacSettlementAct,whichdefinestherelationship   betweentheStateofMaineandtheAroostookBandofMicmacs."Id. `  2(b)(4),105Stat.at1144.  @  ` ThreeprovisionsoftheFederalMicmacSettlementActare    relevanthere.First,theActprovidesforselfgovernance:"The `  Bandmayorganizeforitscommonwelfareandadoptanappropriate   instrumentinwritingtogoverntheaffairsoftheBandwhenacting 0  initsgovernmentalcapacity."Id.7(a),105Stat.at1148.   ` Second,despiteCongress'sstateddesiretoprovidethe P Bandwith"thesamesettlementprovidedtotheHoultonBandof 0 MaliseetIndiansforthesettlementofthatBand'sclaims,"id. p 2(a)(5),105Stat.at1143,theFederalMicmacSettlementAct P doesnotexplicitlysubjecttheBandtoMainelaw.Section6(b)of  thefederalact,entitled"LawsApplicable,"subjectstheBandto  p federallawonthesametermsastheotherMainetribes.105Stat.   at1148.NothinginthefederalactexplicitlysubjectstheBand @" toMainelaw.Bycontrast,theearlierMICSAexplicitlystated  $ thatallIndiantribesotherthanthePassamaquoddyandPenobscots `"& "shallbesubjecttothecivil...jurisdictionoftheState,the #@( lawsoftheState,andthecivil...jurisdictionofthecourts % * oftheState,tothesameextentasanyotherpersonorland '`", therein."25U.S.C.1725(a);id.1721(b)(4). (#.  ` Finally,thefederalactprovidedthat"[i]ntheeventof 0*%0 aconflictofinterpretationbetweentheprovisionsofthe[state] +'2 MaineImplementingAct[affectingthePenobscots,Passamaquoddy,  andMaliseets],the[state]MicmacSettlementAct,orthe[federal] @ MaineIndianClaimsSettlementActof1980andthisAct,the   provisionsofthis[FederalMicmacSettlement]Actshallgovern." `  FederalMicmacSettlementAct11,105Stat.at1149.  @    &  III.     m ` AlthoughtheissuesraisedintheBand'scomplaintgoto `  theheartofitsrelationshipwith' )mԀMaine,thisappealisnarrow.   Asnoted,thedistrictcourtdidnotreachthemerits;rather,it 0  dismissedthecomplaintforlackofsubjectmatterjurisdiction.  Consequently,wedonotdecidewhethertheBand'sclaimshave P merit,butonlywhetherthedistrictcourthadsubjectmatter 0 jurisdictionoverthoseclaims.Insodoing,wereviewdenovothe p districtcourt'sdismissal.Wangv.N.H.Bd.ofRegistrationin P Med.,55F.3d698,700n.3(1stCir.1995)."Inreviewingthe  dismissal,weconstruetheComplaintliberallyandtreatall  p well-pleadedfactsastrue,accordingtheplaintiffthebenefitof   allreasonableinferences."Murphyv.UnitedStates,45F.3d520, @" 522(1stCir.1995).  $  ` CountsIandIItXCXXsXCagainsttheCommissiondefendants#sXCXXtXCq#were `"& dismissedunderthewellpleadedcomplaintrule.CountsIIIandIV #@( weredismissedforlackofajusticiablecaseorcontroversy.We % * divideouranalysisaccordingly.  '`",   &  IV.  (#. :s ` TheBand'sactionseekstoenjoinstateofficialsfrom 0*%0 enforcingtheMHRAandMWPAon'(FsԀthegroundsthatenforcingthose +'2 actsagainsttheBandconflictswithfederallawandthusviolates  theSupremacyClauseoftheUnitedStatesConstitution.,   10      ׀See @ generallyExparteYoung,209U.S.123,14445(1908)(authorizing   suchactions).WemustdecidewhetherthecomplaintpleadsanEx `  parteYoungclaiminamannerthatestablishesfederal  @ jurisdiction.1x   11      ׀     ` TheBandbasesitsclaimoffederaljurisdictionon28 `  U.S.C.1331and1362.Section1331grantsthedistrictcourts   jurisdictionover"allcivilactionsarisingunderthe 0  Constitution,laws,ortreatiesoftheUnitedStates."Section  1362grantsthedistrictcourtsjurisdictionover"allcivil P actions,broughtbyanyIndiantribeorbandwithagoverningbody 0 dulyrecognizedbytheSecretaryoftheInterior,whereinthe p matterincontroversyarisesundertheConstitution,laws,or P treatiesoftheUnitedStates." Thedistrictcourtdismissed  CountsIandIIonthegroundsthattheydidnotsatisfyeither $t 1331or1362underthewellpleadedcomplaintrule.    &  A.0 ` TheWellPleadedComplaintRuleandExparteYoung ` (#` (#  ` TheSupremeCourthaslongconstrued1331torequire @ "thatitbeapparent'`zfromthefaceoftheplaintiff'scomplaint   eitherthatacauseofactionariseunderfederallaw,oratleast `  (insomecases)thatatraditionalstate-lawcauseofaction...  @ presentanimportantfederalissue."PenobscotNationII,254F.3d    at321(citationomitted).Underthisrule,"thefederalclaimor `  issue[must]appearonthefaceof'awell[i.e.,properly]pleaded   complaint,'sothatfederaljurisdictionisabsentwherethe 0  federalissuewouldariseonlyasadefensetoastatecauseof  action."Id.(quotingLouisville&NashvilleR.R.v.Mottley,211 P U.S.149,153-54(1908))(secondalterationinoriginal).Thesame 0 ruleappliestoclaimsfiledinstatecourtandthenremovedto p federalcourtunder28U.S.C.1441.Rossello-Gonzalezv. P Calderon-Serra,398F.3d1,10(1stCir.2004)("[I]ndeciding(for  removalpurposes)whetheracasepresentsafederal'claimor  p right,'acourtistoaskwhethertheplaintiff'sclaimtorelief   restsuponafederalright,andthecourtistolookonlyto @" plaintiff'scomplainttofindtheanswer.")(quotationmarksand  $ citationomitted).   `"&  ` Asnoted,theSupremeCourthaslongrecognizedafederal #@( causeofactionforallegationsthatastateofficer'senforcement % * ofstatelawwouldviolatefederalrights.SeeExparteYoung,209 '`", U.S.at14445.WhiletheCourtdidnotidentifyaspecific (#. federalcauseofactioninExparteYoungitself,"'[t]hebest 0*%0 explanationofExparteYounganditsprogenyisthattheSupremacy +'2 Clausecreatesanimpliedrightofactionforinjunctiverelief  againststateofficerswhoarethreateningtoviolatethefederal @ Constitutionorlaws.'"Burgio&Campofelice,Inc.v.N.Y.State   Dep'tofLabor,107F.3d1000,1006(2dCir.1997)(quotingCharles `  AlanWrightetal.,13BFederalPractice&Procedure:Jurisdiction  @ 2d3566(1984));seealsoLocalUnionNo.12004v.Massachusetts,    377F.3d64,75&n.8(1stCir.2004)(no"explicitstatutorycause `  ofaction"isneededforanExparteYoungactionbecause"'the   rulethatthereisanimpliedrightofactiontoenjoinstateor 0  localregulationthatispreemptedbyafederalstatutoryor  constitutionalprovision--andthatsuchanactionfallswithin P thefederalquestionjurisdiction--iswell-established.'" 0 (quotingRichardH.Fallonetal.,Hart&Wechsler'sTheFederal p Courts&TheFederalSystem903(5thed.2003)). P  ` Itissimplybeyonddisputethatacomplaintwhich  properlypleadsaclaimforreliefagainststateofficersunderthe  p ExparteYoungimpliedrightofactionwillsatisfythewell   pleadedcomplaintrule.SeeVerizonMd.,Inc.v.Pub.Serv. @" Comm'n,535U.S.635,642(2002)(thereis"nodoubtthatfederal  $ courtshavejurisdictionunder1331"overanactionseeking `"& declaratoryandinjunctivereliefagainststateofficialsonthe #@( groundsthatastateregulationwaspreemptedbyfederallaw);Shaw % * v.DeltaAirLines,Inc.,463U.S.85,96n.14(1983)(inunanimous '`", decision,statingthatitis"beyonddisputethatfederalcourts (#. havejurisdictionoversuitstoenjoinstateofficialsfrom 0*%0 interferingwithfederalrights");LocalUnionNo.12004,377F.3d +'2 at74(VerizonMaryland"eliminatesanydoubt"thatdeclaratoryor  injunctiveactionsagainststateofficialstopreventinterference @ withfederalrightsqualifyfor1331jurisdiction);   12      ׀Playboy   Enters.v.Pub.Serv.Comm'n,906F.2d25,3031(1stCir.1990) `  (reiterating,despitesomeuncertaintyastowhySupremeCourt  @ jurisprudencedevelopedasitdid,thattXCXXsXCfederalcourtshave    jurisdictionoveranactionby"aplaintiffseekinginjunctive `  relieffromastateenforcementaction,onthegroundthatstate   lawispreemptedbyafederalstatute"). 0   ` #sXCXXtXC#Theabovepropositionsarewellsettledandour  discussionofjurisdictionalprinciplescouldendhere.Afterall, P wehaveidentifiedafederalcauseofactionthatwillqualifyfor 0 1331jurisdiction;theonlyremainingquestioniswhetherthe p Band'scomplaintproperlypleadssuchanaction.However,Maine P arguesthattheprinciplesestablishedinadifferentlineofcases  requiredismissal.WeexplainbelowwhyMaine'sargumentsfail.  p Indoingso,weemphasizetwofundamentalprinciples.First,under   thewellpleadedcomplaintrule,theplaintiff'scomplaintisthe @" documentinwhichthefederalclaimmustappear,regardlessof  $ whetherthatcomplaintwasfiledinfederalcourtpursuantto  1331,orfiledinstatecourtandthenremovedtofederalcourt @ pursuantto1441.Second,bydefinition,anExparteYoung   actioncanonlybebroughtagainststateofficerdefendants;the `  SupremacyClauseimpliesnorightofactionagainstprivate  @ parties,orbystateofficers.     ` Byfocusingonthesepoints,wecanmakesomesenseout `  ofthearrayofcasesinvokedbyMaineinsupportofitsargument   thattheBand'scomplaintrunsafoulofthewellpleadedcomplaint 0  rule.ThecasesuponwhichMainerelieswhereinfederal  jurisdictionwaslackingare,quitesimply,notExparteYoung P cases.Thesecasesfallintothreegroups:caseswherestate 0 officerswerenotpartiesatall;caseswherestateofficerswere p plaintiffs,notdefendants;andcaseswherestateofficerswere P defendants,buttherewassomeotherseriousflawinthecomplaint  suchthatExparteYoungwasnotproperlypled.  p  ` &  1.0 Stateofficersnotparties  (# (#  ` SeveralofthecasesonwhichMainereliesdidnoteven @" involvestateofficers'Ԁtheywerebetweenprivateparties,or  $ betweenatribeandaprivateparty.SeeSkellyOilCo.v. `"& PhillipsPetroleumCo.,339U.S.667(1950)(privatepartyv. #@( privateparty);TTEAv.YsletaDelSurPueblo,181F.3d676(5th % * Cir.1999)(privatepartyv.tribe);ColonialPennGroup,Inc.v. '`", ColonialDepositCo.,834F.2d229(1stCir.1987)(privateparty (#. v.privateparty).Insuchcases,theExparteYoungcauseof 0*%0 actionisnotavailable.Therefore,theprivateplaintiffs'only +'2 federalcauseofactioninthosecaseswasthetXCXXsXCDeclaratoryJudgment  Act#sXCXXtXC#Ԁitself.Insuchcases,"[w]hateverfederalclaim[plaintiff] @ maybeabletourgewouldinanyeventbeinjectedintothecase   onlyinanticipationofadefensetobeassertedby[defendants]," `  andthetXCXXsXCDeclaratoryJudgmentAct#sXCXXtXC#Ԁdoesnotprovideanindependent  @ basisforjurisdiction.SkellyOil,339U.S.at672.     ` StateofficerswerealsoabsentfromPenobscotNation `  I/II,theprimarycaseuponwhichthedistrictcourtreliedin   findingthatitlackedsubjectmatterjurisdiction.SeeMicmacs, 0  307F.Supp.2dat98101.Thatwasasuitbyatribeagainsta  privateparty.   13      ׀Indeed,thedistrictcourtrecognizedinthatcase P that"[i]ftheTribeswereseekingtoenjoinstateofficials, 0 federaljurisdictionwouldexist,but...where,ashere,private p partiesaredefendants,"ExparteYounganalysisdoesnotapply. P PenobscotNationI,106F.Supp.2dat83n.4.   ` Simplyput,wherestateofficersarenotevenparties  p letalonedefendantstheExparteYoungcauseofactionis   unavailable.Thatisthecontextinwhichwestatedthatthewell @" pleadedcomplaintrule"cannotbeavoidedbyhavingthebeneficiary  $ ofthe[federal]defenseassertthedefensepreemptivelyinaclaim `"& fordeclaratoryorinjunctiverelief."PenobscotNationII,254 #@( F.3dat321.Consequently,PenobscotNationI/II󀄄whichMaine  describesas"muchlikethiscase"isinfactcompletelyunlike @ thiscaseforjurisdictionalpurposes. p     ` &  2.0 Stateofficersasplaintiffs`  (# (#  ` Inthesecondclassofcases,stateofficerssuea  @ privateparty'` {Ԁinstatecourtandthedefendantremovestofederal    court.SeeOkla.TaxComm'nv.Graham,489U.S.838(1989)(per `  curiam)(stateagencyv.tribeinstatecourt);   14      ׀FranchiseTaxBd.   v.Constr.LaborersVacationTrust,463U.S.1(1983)(stateagency 0  v.privatepartyinstatecourt).   15      ׀Forjurisdictionalpurposes,  twoproblemsconfrontsuchdefendants:first,bydefinition,the P actionisnotanExparteYoungaction,sinceithasbeenbrought 0 bystateofficers,notagainstthem;second,itisthestate p plaintiff'scomplaint,notthedefendant'sanswerormotionto P dismiss,thatisanalyzedunderthewellpleadedcomplaintrule.  InGrahamandFranchiseTaxBoard,thestate'scomplaintpledonly  p stateclaims,andhencetherewasnojurisdictionunder1331.  SuchremovalcaseshavenobearingonanExparteYoungaction.   16      ׀ @  ` Indeed,forExparteYoungpurposes,thisclassofcases   isformallyidenticaltothepreviousclass:thedefendantisnot `  astateofficer.Wehavedescribeditseparately,however,because  @ ofacuriousasymmetry.Ifaprivatepartyfilesanactionagainst    stateofficersallegingthattheirenforcementofstatelaw `  violatestheprivateparty'sfederalrights,thatisanExparte   Youngactionand1331jurisdictionisavailable.Butifthe 0  stateofficersfileanactioninstatecourttoenforcethatvery  statelaw,andtheprivatepartyseekstoremovetofederalcourt P onthebasisofthesamepreemptionargument,thatisnotanEx 0 parteYoungaction,andthereisusuallynofederaljurisdiction p (unlessthereissomeotherbasisforjurisdiction). P  ` Thisasymmetryis,however,avirtuallyinevitable  consequenceofthefactthat,eventhoughanExparteYoungaction  p  isinsomewaysthemirrorimageofstateprosecution,1331   jurisdictionisdeterminedfromthecomplaintalone.   17      ׀Inthefirst   examplewheretheprivatepartyfilesanExparteYoungaction @ infederalcourtthefederalcourtlooksattheplaintiff's   complaintandseesafederalcauseofaction.Inthesecond `  examplewherethestatefilesastatelawactioninstatecourt  @ andtheprivatepartyremovesthefederalcourtlooksatthe    plaintiff'scomplaintandseesonlystatelawissues.Whilethis `  asymmetrymayyieldoddresultsorincentivestoracetothe   courthouse,itisalogicalconsequenceofthewellpleaded 0  complaintruleitself.   ` & x 3.0 SomeotherdefectprecludesExparteYoung P tjurisdictionh (# (#  ` Inthethirdclassofcases,thepartiesareproperly  aligned'x#foranExparteYoungactionthedefendantsarestate 8 officersbutsomeotherdefectprecludesExparteYoung   jurisdiction.TheleadingexampleofthisclassisPublicService X Commissionv.WycoffCo.,344U.S.237,248(1952).   18      ׀Awidely   citeddictuminthatcasestatedthatfederaljurisdictiondoesnot @ extendtodeclaratoryjudgmentactionsthatassertfederaldefenses   tostateclaims.Seeid.at248;seealsoFranchiseTaxBd.,463 `  U.S.at16(quotingWycoff).But,astheCourtmadeclear,the  @ flawinWycoffwasthat,whiletXCXXsXCthecomplaintsoughttoresolvea    disputedquestionoffederallaw,itdidnotactuallyassertany `  federalrightsorviolations:   8 ` Thecomplainantinthiscasedoesnotrequest 0  anadjudicationthatithasarighttodo,or H  tohave,anythinginparticular.Itdoesnot  askajudgmentthattheCommissioniswithout  powertoenteranyspecificorderortakeany P concreteregulatorystep.Itseekssimplyto h establishthat,aspresentlyconducted, 0 [plaintiff]'scarriageofgoodsbetweenpoints  withinaswellaswithoutUtahisall p interstatecommerce.Onenaturallyasks,so 8 what?Tothatultimatequestionnoansweris P sought.` x` x #sXCXXtXC #Id.tXCXXsXCԀat244.TheCourtheldthatthecomplaintdidnotstatea X claimforreliefundertheDeclaratoryJudgmentAct,andwasunripe 8 inanyevent.#sXCXXtXC;#Id.tXCXXsXCԀat24347.Consequently,itwas"notnecessary x! todeterminewhether#sXCXXtXC=#...tXCXXsXCԀtheallegedcontroversyoveranaction  X# thatmaybebeguninstatecourtwouldbemaintainableunderthe !%  headoffederal-questionjurisdiction."#sXCXXtXC޾#Id.tXCXXsXCԀat24849.#sXCXXtXC#Ԁ (#x'  ` TheoddlydeficientcomplaintinWycoffmightbesui   generisamongpublishedappellatecases.Indeed,wehavefoundno @ caseinwhichweappliedtheWycoffdictumtoacaseintheposture   ofWycoffitselfi.e.,nocaseinwhichweappliedWycofftoan `  ExparteYoungactionandfoundjurisdictionlacking.Atanyrate,  @ theflawinWycoffisnotpresenthere.    0 ` 4.0 ` (#` (#Conclusion`  (# (#  ` Maine'srelianceonthewellpleadedcomplaintrule,when   reducedtoitsessentials,ismisguided.TheBandseeksinjunctive 0  anddeclaratoryreliefagainsttheCommissionanditsofficersfor  purportedlyviolatingitsfederalrights.Assumingthatother P requirementsofExparteYoungaresatisfiede.g.,thatthereis 0 acolorableclaimofafederalrighttheseclaimsqualifyfor p "arisingunder"jurisdictionunderthewellpleadedcomplaintrule. P  ` &   ItistruethattheBand'sargumentscouldariseas  defensesinastatecourtaction.' LԀButaproperlyframedfederal  p causeofactiondoesnotfalloutside1331simplybecauseit   couldalsoariseasanaffirmativefederaldefenseinstatecourt. @" "[F]ederaljurisdictionisabsentwherethefederalissuewould  $ ariseonlyasadefensetoastatecauseofaction."Penobscot `"& NationII,254F.3dat321(emphasisadded).Justbecausea #@( federalissuecouldariseasadefensetoastatelawactiondoes % * notmeanthatthefederalissuecanonlyariseasadefensetoa '`", statelawaction.Infact,thefederalclaimsinmostExparte (#. Youngactionscouldberaisedasaffirmativedefensestostate 0*%0 courtactions.ButanExparteYoungaction"thoughultimately +'2 'defensive'inthesensethatitseekstopreventharmsthreatened  bystateofficials--doesconstituteafederalquestionunder @ 1331."LocalUnionNo.12004,377F.3dat74.    ` RelyingonPenobscotNationI/II,thedistrictcourtin `  thiscasewhichdidnothavethebenefitofoursCXXsXCLocalUnionNo.  @ 12004decision#sXCXXsC##decidedthatit"mustlookattheindividual    defendants'MHRAandMWPAcomplaintsastheyaretenderedinthe `  statecourt";hypothesizedhowthosecomplaintsmight"play[]out";   andimaginedhow,inpotentialstatecourtproceedings,theBand 0  might"answer[]andassert[]asaffirmativedefensesthecontents  oftheirthree(non-TitleVII)countsinthisdeclaratoryaction." P Micmacs,307F.Supp.2dat101.ItthenconcludedthattheBand's 0 claimscouldberaisedasaffirmativedefenses,andhencewerenot p partofawellpleadedfederalcomplaint. P  ` AsVerizonMarylandandLocalUnion12004makeclear,  thatisnotthecorrectanalysis.Thequestionisnotwhetherthe  p allegedlyfederalclaimscouldberaisedasaffirmativedefensesto   astateaction,butratherwhethertheycouldonlybesoraised. @" WithanExparteYoungaction,thatisclearlynotthecase.Such  $ anactionrests,atbottom,ontheimpliedfederalrightofaction `"& createdbytheSupremacyClause.Thatimpliedrightofaction, #@( whenproperlypled,suppliesthebasisfor"arisingunder" % * jurisdictionunder1331.Thequestionhereiswhetherthe '`", complaintproperlypleadssuchaclaim. (#.  B.0 ` CountI(ApplicationofMHRAandMWPAtotheBand)0*%0` (#` (#  ` ToanalyzeCountI'sbasisfor1331jurisdiction,we   firstsketchitsoutline;next,wedeterminewhethertherights @ thattheBandallegesarecolorable,federal,andpotentially   preemptiveofcontrarystatelaws;and,finally,weexaminethe `  state'sargumentthatthereisnoactualorthreatenedstate  @ enforcementaction.0   19           ` CountIarguesthattheCommission'sinvestigationof `  tribalpersonnelaffairsviolatestwocloselyrelatedbut   conceptuallydistinctfederalrights:tribalsovereignty,as 0  inherenttotheBandandreaffirmedbyCongresswhenitextended  federalrecognitiontotheBand;andastatutoryrighttotribal P selfgovernance,derivedfromSection7(a)oftheFederalMicmac 0 SettlementAct.   20      ׀ItcontendsthatthelatterAct,whichfinally p resolvestheBand'slegalstatusandcontrolsanypriorlaw,does P notgrantthestateanyjurisdictionoverthepersonnelpractices  oftheBand'sgoverningbody.  p  ` CountIfundamentallyassertstworights:(1)inherent   tribalsovereigntyand(2)tribalselfgovernanceunderSection7 @" oftheFederalMicmacSettlementAct.Weexamineeach.  $  ` &  1.0 Tribalsovereignty p 0 (# (#(#(#  ` Tribal"retainedsovereigntypredatesfederalrecognition @ -indeed,'ԀitpredatesthebirthoftheRepublic."RhodeIslandv.   NarragansettIndianTribe,19F.3d685,694(1stCir.1994). `  "Becauseoftheirsovereignstatus,tribes...areinsulatedin  @ somerespectsbya'historicimmunityfromstateandlocal    control,'andtribesretainanyaspectoftheirhistorical `  sovereigntynot'inconsistentwiththeoverridinginterestsofthe   NationalGovernment.'"NewMexicov.MescaleroApacheTribe,462 0  U.S.324,332(1983)(citationsomitted).   ` Whenwespeakofatribe'ssovereignty,wemeanits P powersasagovernment.Atitsapex,tribalsovereigntycan 0 includebroadpowerstodeterminetheformoftribalgovernment;to p determinemembership;to"enactsubstantivecriminalandcivil P laws"thatapplytotribalmemberswithintribalterritory;to  regulatedomesticrelations,suchasmarriagesanddivorces,and  p "thedescentanddistributionofthepropertyoftribalmembers";   toimposetaxes;tooperatecourtsystemsandadministerjustice; @" andtoexcludepersonsfromtribalterritory.SeeFelixS.Cohen,  $ HandbookofFederalIndianLaw24652(1982ed.).Ofcourse,not `"& alltribesretainthefullpanoplyofthesepowerstoday.Atribe #@( retainsthoseaspectsofsovereigntythathavenotbeen"withdrawn % * bytreatyorstatute,orbyimplicationasanecessaryresultof '`", [thetribe's]dependentstatus."UnitedStatesv.Wheeler,435 (#. U.S.313,323(1978).Congress'sbroadpowersovertribesareboth 0*%0 "plenaryandexclusive,"UnitedStatesv.Lara,124S.Ct.1628, +'2 1633(2004)(quotationmarksandcitationomitted),and"only  CongresscanabrogateorlimitanIndiantribe'ssovereignty," @ Fellencer,164F.3dat709.    ` Oneimportantaspectoftribalsovereigntyis"'thepower `  ofregulating[its]internalandsocialrelations,'"whichincludes  @ the"rightofinternalself-government."Wheeler,435U.S.at322    (citationomitted).Atribe'spowerto"maintainorestablishits `  ownformofgovernment....isthefirstelementof   sovereignty."HandbookofFederalIndianLaw,supra,at247.The 0  formoftribalgovernment"mayreflectthetribe'sdeterminationas  towhatformbestfitsitsneedsbasedonpractical,cultural, P historical,orreligiousconsiderations."Id.   21      ׀ x  0  ` Thisrighttoselfgovernancemaypreemptcontrarystate p law.Conceptually,inherenttribalsovereigntyisadoctrineof P federalcommonlaw.SeeLara,124S.Ct.at1637.(    22      ׀TheSupremacy  Clauseappliestofederalcommonlawnolessthanfederalstatutes.  SeeWilburnBoatCo.v.Fireman'sFundIns.Co.,348U.S.310,314 @ (1955)(wherethefederalcourtshavetheauthoritytofashion   federalcommonlaw,"[s]tatescannomoreoverridesuchjudicial `  rulesvalidlyfashionedthantheycanoverrideActsofCongress");  @ Sampsonv.F.R.G.,250F.3d1145,1153n.4(7thCir.2001)(unlike    earlier"generalcommonlaw,""thefederalcommonlawoftoday `  ...fall[s]undertheSupremacyClause").Consequently,tribal   sovereigntymaypreemptcontrarystatelawundertheSupremacy 0  Clause."Statejurisdictionispre-emptedbytheoperationof  federallawifitinterferesorisincompatiblewithfederaland P tribalinterestsreflectedinfederallaw,unlessthestate 0 interestsatstakearesufficienttojustifytheassertionofstate p authority."MescaleroApacheTribe,462U.S.at334.   23       P  ` Inshort,inherenttribalsovereigntyisafederalcommon  lawrightthatpreemptscontrarystatelaw,andisthereforea  p properbasisforanExparteYoungaction.    ` &   2.0 Statutoryrighttoselfgovernance (# (#  ` Inadditiontoinherentsovereignty' ,theBandalso @ assertsastatutoryrighttoselfgovernancecodifiedinSection   7(a)oftheFederalMicmacSettlementAct.   24      ׀TheBandfurthernotes `  that,whileMICSArequiredthegoverninginstrumentsofthe  @ Penobscots,Passamaquoddy,andMaliseetstobe"consistentwith    thetermsof[MICSA]andtheMaineImplementingAct,"theFederal `  MicmacSettlementActrequiresonlythattheBand'sgoverning   instrumentbeconsistentwiththetermsoftheFederalMicmac 0  SettlementActitself.Compareid.with25U.S.C.1726(a).And  theFederalMicmacSettlementActagainunlikeMICSAdoesnot P explicitlysubjecttheBandtoMainelaw.SeesupraPartII.B. 0 Finally,theBandargues,whileMICSAadmittedlymakes"all p Indians,Indiannations,ortribesorbandsofIndiansintheState P ofMaine,otherthanthePassamaquoddyTribe[and]thePenobscot  Nation...subjecttothecivilandcriminaljurisdictionofthe  p State,thelawsoftheState,andthecivilandcriminal   jurisdictionofthecourtsoftheState,tothesameextentasany @" otherperson...therein,"25U.S.C.1725(a),theFederal  $ MicmacSettlementActexplicitlystatesthatitcontrolsincaseof `"&  aconflictwiththeMaineImplementingAct,MICSA,ortheState #@( MicmacSettlementAct.SeeFederalMicmacSettlementAct11,105  Stat.at1148.   25       @   ` Thecomplaintanticipatesthestate'sresponsethat   theFederalMicmacSettlementActratifiedtheStateMicmac `  SettlementAct,whichdidmaketheBand"subjecttothelawsofthe  @ Stateandtothecivilandcriminaljurisdictionof