arise under Community law, not federal law. The Court therefore does not have jurisdiction to consider these claims. Runs After v. United States, 766 F.2d 347, 353 (8th Cir. 1985) (“resolution of [] disputes involving questions of the interpretation of the tribal constitution and tribal law is not within the jurisdiction of the district court”). 7. RICO Claims In Counts Nine, Ten and Eleven of their Amended Complaint, Plaintiffs accuse the Business Council and the individual Community Defendants of violating RICO. Plaintiffs raise three separate RICO claims against these Community Defendants: (1) violation of RICO section 1962(b) through extortion under 18 U.S.C. § 1951; (2) violation of RICO section 1962(c) through m Supp. 1429, 1434 (D.Minn.1993), aff'd, 30 F.3d 976 (8th Cir. 1994) (<HOLDING>); Bair v. Krug, 853 F.2d 672, 674-75 (9th
holding state immune from suit brought in state court holding that state of minnesota was immune from rico suit absent a waiver of its sovereign immunity holding that a state may waive its sovereign immunity holding united states government is immune from rico suit holding an antiretaliation statute meaningless absent waiver of sovereign immunity