Read the following excerpt from a US court opinion:
```
cited in City of Phila., 838 A.2d at 588. Accordingly, by 2003, germaneness had evolved to a standard of “whether the court can fashion a single, over-arching topic to loosely relate the various subjects included in the statute under review.” City of Phila., 838 A.2d at 587. Nevertheless, we cautioned that we should be careful not to render Section 3 “impotent to guard against the evils that it was designed to curtail” by fashioning a theme that is all-encompassing in its broadness. Id. at 588 (citing, e.g., DeWeese v. Weaver, 824 A.2d 364 (Pa.Cmwlth.2003) (finding the theme “business of the courts” too encompassing to uphold a law regulating DNA records and apportioning negligence liability); Pa. Ass’n of Rental Dealers v. Com., 123 Pa.Cmwlth. 533, 554 A.2d 998 (1989) ). Thus, in City of Philadelphia,
```
What is the most suitable continuation to the opinion? Your options are:
A. holding that the topic of economic wellbeing of the commonwealth would turn the germaneness requirement into a nullity
B. holding the appellant was guilty of transporting illegal substances into the commonwealth the moment he crossed the border into virginia which took place well before they were discovered
C. holding that the petitioner may not turn a clerical error into a windfall of rights it would not otherwise enjoy internal quotation marks omitted
D. holding that school districts do not share in the commonwealth of pennsylvanias eleventh amendment sovereign immunity because they are not alter egos of the commonwealth
E. holding that the commission is a commonwealth agency entitled to sovereign immunity
Reply with [A, B, C, D, E] only.