tribal court jurisdiction.” We have been unable to locate, however, any authorities that support the distinction drawn by the district court. It is well recognized that “[f]ederal question jurisdiction ... extends to ... claims that the exercise of tribal authority impermissibly exceeds the federal common-law limits imposed by the Supreme Court.” Cohen 3 F.3d 1412, 1421-22 (8th Cir.1996) (noting that among the “aspects of the dispute” that raised a federal question was the fact that “this case is being directed to the Tribal Court and exhaustion within that system” and further observing that “[t]he existence of tribal court jurisdiction itself presents a federal question within the scope of 28 U.S.C. § 1331”); cf. Arizona Publ. Serv. Co. v. Aspaas, 77 F.3d 1128, 1132 (9th Cir.1996) (<HOLDING>). Following the lead of our sister circuits,
holding that state has no jurisdiction over civil suit by nonindian against indian where cause of action arises on indian reservation holding states in exercising the federal trust power over indian tribes pursuant to a federal statute authorizing them to do so may enact legislation that would be an otherwise unconstitutional exercise of state power holding that federal court has neither federal question nor diversity jurisdiction over civil action by nonindian against indian for events occurring on the reservation holding that in context of a challenge to a tribes legislative authority over a nonindian that was allegedly limited by contract a nonindian challenging an exercise of tribal adjudicatory or legislative power states a claim that arises under federal law recognizing that tribes have an interest in a uniform body of federal law in the area of tribal immunity