must bring su reign to determine its own membership, the Court holds that it lacks subject matter jurisdiction to determine whether any plaintiffs were wrongfully denied enrollment in the Tribe. Plaintiffs must pursue these claims in Tribal Court. The other side of sovereign immunity for Indian people is that if they receive no redress in Tribal Court, then there is no further appeal and there is no remedy in federal court. Whether or not there would be any potential remedy in some instances in state court is not before this Court. Finally, plaintiffs claim that tribal officials have violated the Tribal Gaming Revenue Allocation Ordinance. If this claim is confined to whether the Ordinance has been followed, plaintiffs’ remedy is in Tribal Court. See Runs After, 766 F.2d at 353 (<HOLDING>). If plaintiffs’ claim that tribal officials’
holding that disputes involving questions of interpretation of a tribal constitution and tribal law is not within the jurisdiction of the district court holding that resolution of tribal law disputes are not within federal court jurisdiction holding that acoma tribal law was the law of the place because the tribal court could have jurisdiction over the plaintiffs claim holding that federal courts do not have jurisdiction to interpret a tribal constitution or tribal laws holding that federal court lacks jurisdiction to decide tribal membership disputes