In the 1990 case of Edgar Blatchford, Commissioner, Department of Community and Regional Affairs of Alaska v. Native Village of Noatak and Circle Village, the U.S. Supreme Court ruled that Indian tribes do not have sovereign immunity from suits brought by states. The State of Alaska had sued two native Alaskan villages for declaratory judgment to determine whether it could tax certain lands under their control. The villages claimed they were immune from suit based on tribal sovereignty rights recognized in federal law. However, the court held that while tribes generally enjoy immunity from suits brought by private parties or foreign governments without congressional authorization or waiver by the tribe itself; this does not extend to suits initiated by states because they are part of "Our Federalism". This decision clarified a significant aspect regarding tribal sovereignty within American jurisprudence.

In the dissenting opinion for Blatchford v. Native Village of Noatak, Justice Brennan disagreed with the majority's interpretation of tribal sovereignty and immunity. He argued that Indian tribes should be considered as foreign governments under U.S law, which would grant them sovereign immunity from lawsuits in state courts unless Congress explicitly abrogates it. According to him, this principle was well-established in previous court decisions and reflected respect for tribal self-governance. Furthermore, he contended that Alaska had implicitly consented to suit by accepting federal funds tied to a statute allowing such suits against states. Therefore, he believed that the case should have been remanded back to lower courts rather than dismissed outright.