With no explanation, chose the best option from "A", "B", "C" or "D". (unpublished) (affirming the district court’s decision that the lawsuit was barred by the AIA, but remanding the case “for the district court to revise the- judgment to clarify that the petition was dismissed without prejudice for lack of subject matter jurisdiction”). While the minority’s analysis in Hobby Lobby on the jurisdictional nature of the AIA may be compelling, it does not change the fact that this Court is bound by U.S. Supreme Court and Tenth Circuit case law holding the opposite. Therefore, the Court concludes the AIA applies in this case and operates to strip the Court of subject matter jurisdiction over the Tribe’s lawsuit. The same conclusion applies with respect to the Declaratory Judgment Act (DJA). See Wyo. Trucking Ass’n v. Bentsen, 82 F.3d 930, 935 (10th Cir.1996) (<HOLDING>). The DJA does not provide this Court with

A: holding that where discretionary function exception of  2680a applied district court lacked subject matter jurisdiction over cause of action
B: holding that the federal claims which arose from state court criminal contempt proceedings were inextricably intertwined with the state court action and thus the federal district court lacked subject matter jurisdiction over the claims pursuant to the rookerfeldman doctrine
C: holding that a federal district court lacked subject matter jurisdiction over a suit that effectively sought review of an indiana state courts decision
D: holding that the court lacked subject matter jurisdiction based on the djas federal tax exception over an action seeking a declaration as to the rights of litigating parties with respect to federal taxes
D.