Task: Wrong Candidate Generation
Input (English): Equal Protection Clause’s prohibition and is therefore subject to the most exacting scrutiny. Shaw, at -, 113 S.Ct. at 2824. Such action will be upheld only if it is narrowly tailored to further a compelling governmental interest. Id. at -, 113 S.Ct. at 2825. The defendants first argue that the court should not apply the strict scrutiny reserved for racial classifications to the plaintiffs’ equal protection claim because Native Americans are a political group, not a race. They rely on a line of Supreme Court decisions holding that federal statutes singling out Native Americans for special treatment do not violate equal protection guarantees. See, e.g., Washington v. Confederated Bands & Tribes of the Yakima Indian Nation, 439 U.S. 463, 500-01, 99 S.Ct. 740, 761, 58 L.Ed.2d 740 (1979) (<HOLDING>); United States v. Antelope, 430 U.S. 641, 
 Holding statements: (A) holding that state failed to assume even partial jurisdiction in compliance with public law 280 (B) holding that a state law that allowed the state to assume only partial jurisdiction over indians and indian territory did not require strict scrutiny and was rationally related to a valid state objective (C) holding that indian tribes could only exercise criminal jurisdiction over tribal members and not other indians (D) holding that state of south dakota does not have criminal jurisdiction over indians in indian country (E) holding that the state of oklahoma did not have jurisdiction to make an arrest within indian country where the state had neither received by express grant nor acted pursuant to congressional authorization to assume criminal jurisdiction over the reservation
Output (English): holding that the state of oklahoma did not have jurisdiction to make an arrest within indian country where the state had neither received by express grant nor acted pursuant to congressional authorization to assume criminal jurisdiction over the reservation