Read the following excerpt from a US court opinion:
```
decision, however broad it may seem, is actually quite narrow in two respects. First, our decision holds only that Sheriff Arpaio lacks standing to challenge DACA and DAPA, not that those programs are categorically shielded from suit. Indeed, those programs are currently subject to challenge in a number of other circuits. See Texas, 787 F.3d at 747-55 (upholding Texas’ standing to challenge DAPA based on the costs of providing drivers licenses to DAPA beneficiaries); Ariz. DREAM Act Coal. v. Brewer, No. 15-15307, 81 F.3d 795, 2015 WL 300376 (9th Cir.2015) (ordering the parties, and inviting the federal government, to file briefs discussing whether DACA violates the separation of powers or the Take Care Clause of the Constitution); cf. Crane v. Johnson, 783 F.3d 244, 252 (5th Cir.2015) . Second, today’s decision does not take issue
```
What is the most suitable continuation to the opinion? Your options are:
A. holding that the plaintiff had failed to produce sufficient evidence to establish constructive notice because the plaintiff did not present any evidence to establish that the oil was on the floor for any length of time
B. holding that a school was not a state actor even though it had to comply with many state regulations to be eligible for state funding and almost all of its students had been referred to it by the state
C. holding that the state police is a state agency
D. recognizing the right of a defendant to comment upon the failure of the state to produce evidence
E. holding mississippi lacked standing to challenge daca because the state failed to submit   evidence that any daca eligible immigrants resided in the state or produce evidence of costs it would incur if some dacaapproved immigrants came to the state
Reply with [A, B, C, D, E] only.