With no explanation, chose the best option from "A", "B", "C" or "D". (1946); Draper v. United States, 164 U.S. 240, 17 S.Ct. 107, 41 L.Ed. 419 (1896); United States v. McBratney, 104 U.S. 621, 26 L.Ed. 869 (1881). Thus, under the IGCA, the criminal laws of the United States apply to offenses committed in Indian country by non-Indians against Indians and by Indians against non-Indians; “[section] 1152 establishes federal jurisdiction over interracial crimes only.” United States v. Prentiss, 256 F.3d 971, 974 (10th Cir.2001) (per curiam) (en banc). The exception in the IGCA preserves the right of tribal courts to try offenses committed in Indian country by Indians against Indians, while recognizing that Indian tribes generally do not have jurisdiction over non-Indians. See Oliphant, 435 U.S. at 195-206 & n. 8, 98 S.Ct. 1011; see also 25 U.S.C. § 1302(2)(<HOLDING>). The Supreme Court has interpreted the

A: holding that indian tribes could only exercise criminal jurisdiction over tribal members and not other indians
B: 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
C: holding that state of south dakota does not have criminal jurisdiction over indians in indian country
D: recognizing the inherent power of indian tribes  to exercise criminal jurisdiction over all indians
D.