Read the following excerpt from a US court opinion:
```
letter “affects the internal membership decisions” of HC HCEA from admitting desired members and controlling the content of its recruiting speech, but the record shows that HCEA did not adjust its recruiting methods, much less turn away willing members, in response to the Board’s letter. While we must “give deference to an association’s view of what would impair its expression,” Boy Scouts, 530 U.S. at 653, 120 S.Ct. 2446, we agree with the district court that “such deference has its limits.” Thus, we need not accept HCEA’s claim of impairment when it has failed to demonstrate how the Board’s letter either disrupts its ability to associate or substantially weakens its message by imposing restrictions on association. See U.S. Citizens Ass’n v. Sebelius, 705 F.3d 588, 600 (6th Cir.2013) . Because the Board’s letter did not
```
What is the most suitable continuation to the opinion? Your options are:
A. holding that the hospital failed to show how it was harmed by failure to verify the rule to show cause
B. holding that exclusion of religious groups from universitys open forum policy violated the first amendment
C. holding that for purposes of statutory construction expression of one thing is the exclusion of the other
D. recognizing that a court must afford deference to a groups view of what impairs its expression yet finding that the plaintiffs failed to show how the affordable care acts individual mandate significantly burdened the groups expression
E. holding since the sidewalk is a nonpublic forum the regulation must be reasonable and not an effort to suppress expression merely because public officials oppose the speakers view
Reply with [A, B, C, D, E] only.