court observed, the Tribe failed to articulate how a court can determine "which subsets of gaming lawsuits fall within a federal court’s jurisdiction.” Appellant's Br. at Addendum, Mem. Op. at 12. 6 . Several courts have also distinguished Ross and Maxam by refusing to find a waiver of sovereign immunity when, although gaming was generally at issue in the case, the specific action asked the court to determine tribal membership, a subject which has traditionally been exclusively within a tribe's domain. See Lincoln v. Saginaw Chippewa Indian Tribe of Michigan, 967 F.Supp. 966, 967 (E.D.Mich.1997) ("[Tjhis court finds that it lacks jurisdiction to hear what is essentially a membership dispute between Plaintiffs and the Tribe.”); Smith v. Babbitt, 875 F.Supp. 1353, 1360 (D.Minn.1995) (<HOLDING>), aff'd, 100 F.3d 556 (8th Cir.1996), cert.
holding that federal court lacks jurisdiction to decide tribal membership disputes holding that acoma tribal law was the law of the place because the tribal court could have jurisdiction over the plaintiffs claim holding that the court of federal claims lacked jurisdiction over claims arising from the violation of a criminal statute holding that it lacked jurisdiction over an internal tribal membership disputen which was not a dispute over compliance with igra and does not belong in federal court holding over