Read the following excerpt from a US court opinion:
```
legislation because it “grants Native Americans a right not enjoyed by other Americans, that is, a right to the protection of a special ethnic-based trademark for its style of goods that is not available to any other race or ethnicity.” (Def.’s Mem. 28.) As such, Specialties argues, the IACA should be subjected to strict scrutiny, a test it cannot survive. But the Supreme Court has established that statutes providing for special treatment of Indians will not be disturbed “[a]s long as the special treatment can be tied rationally to the fulfillment of Congress’ unique obligation toward the Indians.” Morton v. Mancari, 417 U.S. 535, 555, 94 S.Ct. 2474, 41 L.Ed.2d 290 (1974); see also United States v. Antelope, 430 U.S. 641, 645 & n. 6, 97 S.Ct. 1395, 51 L.Ed.2d 701 (1977) . Accordingly, federal courts have long
```
What is the most suitable continuation to the opinion? Your options are:
A. holding the constitution vests the federal government with exclusive authority over relations with indian tribes
B. recognizing the inherent power of indian tribes  to exercise criminal jurisdiction over all indians
C. holding that congress which regulated the introduction of alcoholic beverages in indian country could validly delegate to indian tribes its authority to regulate that subject matter because indian tribes themselves possessed independent authority over the subject matter
D. holding that federal legislation with respect to indian tribes  is not based upon impermissible racial classifications and noting that article i  8 of the constitution gives congress the power to regulate commerce  with the indian tribes
E. holding that an indian tribes exercise of criminal jurisdiction over nonindians is inconsistent with the domesticdependent status of the tribes and that tribes may not assume such jurisdiction without congressional authorization
Reply with [A, B, C, D, E] only.