C Although a broadly focused scope-related objection misfires, a more narrowly focused objection looms. The district court resolved the Authority’s claim of supervening tribal court jurisdiction by turning directly to the contract’s forum-selection clause and passing upon its enforceability, see Ninigret, 32 F.Supp.2d at 504-05, thus holding, by implication, that the tribal exhaustion doctrine does not apply to the interpretation of such a provision. There is a difference of opinion, however, as to whether contractual forum-selection clauses escape application of the doctrine. Compare Basil Cook, 117 F.3d at 63-64, 69 (affirming application of tribal exhaustion doctrine despite the presence of an arbitration clause in the contract sub judice), and Snowbird, 666 F.Supp. at 1444 (<HOLDING>) with Altheimer, 983 F.2d at 814-15 (deciding
holding that the initial interpretation of a contractual forumselection clause must be made by the tribal court holding that disputes involving questions of interpretation of a tribal constitution and tribal law is not within the jurisdiction of the district court holding party opposing forumselection clause must meet heavy burden by demonstrating clearly that enforcement would be unreasonable and unjust holding that a forumselection clause was mandatory because it provided for exclusive jurisdiction and venue in a particular court holding that acoma tribal law was the law of the place because the tribal court could have jurisdiction over the plaintiffs claim