Section 106 of the National Historic Preservation Act Enforceability of Programmatic Agreement Against FHWA. The court ruled that the Tribe could not sue FHWA and ACHP to enforce the PA because the federal agencies were entitled to sovereign immunity. The Tribe argued that the NHPA waived the federal government’s sovereign immunity for a lawsuit to enforce a PA, but the court disagreed. The court explained that the NHPA did not require a federal agency to enter into a PA nor prevent a federal agency from terminating a PA. Thus, even if the NHPA created a private right of action for plaintiffs to sue a federal agency for violating the NHPA (a question that the court did not decide), that right would not provide a basis for suing a federal agency to enforce a PA. “In short, this is not an action to enforce the statute, nor is it even an action to enforce a regulation. Rather, it is an attempt to require the federal defendants to participate as parties in a suit arising out of RIDOT’s alleged breach of a contract. Nothing in the statute, either expressly or implicitly, waives the federal government’s sovereign immunity to such a suit.” Enforceability of Programmatic Agreement Against State. The court also ruled that the Tribe could not bring a lawsuit in federal court against RIDOT and the RIHPHC for violating the PA because federal courts lacked subject matter jurisdiction over the claims. The court explained that although the PA “arose under the auspices of the NHPA,” the case essentially involved only issues of state contract law. Moreover, the Tribe could not bring a lawsuit against state agencies to enforce the NHPA because the NHPA is directed at federal agencies and does not impose duties on state agencies.