Task: Wrong Candidate Generation
Input (English): regulate non-Indian hunting and fishing in the taken area because the relevant statutes did not affirmatively abrogate either the tribe’s treaty rights or inherent tribal sovereignty. Id. at 700-04, 113 S.Ct. at 2323-24. EXHAUSTION OF TRIBAL REMEDIES Next, National Farmers Union Insurance Cos. v. Crow Tribe, 471 U.S. 845, 105 S.Ct. 2447, 85 L.Ed.2d 818 (1985) (National Farmers Union), and Iowa Mutual do not establish only a rule of exhaustion requiring tribal courts to determine their jurisdiction in the first instance. The rule of exhaustion established in National Farmers Union is premised upon the Court’s decision that tribal civil jurisdiction over non-Indians is not automatically foreclosed by Oliphant v. Suquamish Indian Tribe, 435 U.S. 191, 98 S.Ct. 1011, 55 L.Ed.2d 209 (1978) (<HOLDING>). National Farmers Union recognized that an 
 Holding statements: (A) holding that states taxing jurisdiction over nonmember indians is equivalent to states taxing jurisdiction over nonindians (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 federal legislation conferring jurisdiction on federal courts to try nonindians for offenses committed in indian country had implicitly preempted tribal criminal jurisdiction over nonindians (D) holding that state of south dakota does not have criminal jurisdiction over indians in indian country (E) holding that federal courts do not have jurisdiction to interpret a tribal constitution or tribal laws
Output (English): holding that state of south dakota does not have criminal jurisdiction over indians in indian country