Read the following excerpt from a US court opinion:
```
(“[Wjhere the Federal Government takes on or has control or supervision over tribal monies or properties, the fiduciary relationship normally exists with respect to such monies or properties ... even though nothing is said expressly in the authorizing or underlying statute.... ”). But this does not make the invocation of the United States’s name a mere formality. Indeed, in a recent case involving § 81, the Seventh Circuit rejected a standing challenge based on the non-Indian relators’ having no connection whatsoever with the contracts, because the United States was the plaintiff, and it had standing. See United States ex rel. Hall v. Tribal Dev. Corp., 49 F.3d 1208, 1211-15 (7th Cir.1995); cf. United States ex rel. Mosay v. Buffalo Bros. Management, Inc., 20 F.3d 739 (7th Cir.1994) . Congress wished to protect tribes by aligning
```
What is the most suitable continuation to the opinion? Your options are:
A. holding that plaintiffs lacked standing to sue
B. recognizing that a buyer may sue for specific performance of a realestate contract
C. holding that tribal members may sue as relators
D. holding plaintiff may sue federal agents for money damages for violation of his constitutional rights
E. holding that employers have standing to sue
Reply with [A, B, C, D, E] only.