Read the following excerpt from a US court opinion:
```
Act, the rest of the case was devoted to a statute limiting contingency fee agreements for Civil War claims. Id. Other cases have followed Nutt and Calhoun to hold that attorneys may not take a contingency interest in or a lien against claims against the United States. See United States v. Transocean Air Lines, Inc., 386 F.2d 79, 82 (5th Cir.1967) (“A contingent fee in a judgment against the United States is an assignment subject to the Anti-assignment Act.”); Kearney v. United States, 152 Ct.Cl. 202, 285 F.2d 797, 800 (1961) (“[A] contract between an attorney and a client which gives the attorney an interest in the client’s claim against the Government is exactly what the anti-assignment statute forbids.”); Pittman v. United States, 127 Ct.Cl. 173, 116 F.Supp. 576, 580 (1953) . However, Honig is not asserting a right akin
```
What is the most suitable continuation to the opinion? Your options are:
A. holding that nutt stands for the broad principle that any attempt to impress a lien upon the proceeds of a claim against the united states as security for the payment of an attorneys fee is within the ends to which the prohibition of the act was aimed
B. holding that sovereign immunity bars an attorneys lien against the united states
C. holding the beginning of a creditors action to subject an equitable estate to the payment of a judgment gives a specific lien upon the property which it is sought to reach and this lien continues while the cause is pending
D. recognizing the delegation of authority to the united states attorneys
E. holding that the fourth amendment does not mandate the payment of money by the united states
Reply with [A, B, C, D, E] only.