Read the following excerpt from a US court opinion:
```
governmental interest or if it is an unreasonable means of advancing a legitimáte governmental interest.” In Curto, the plaintiff, a gas station owner, claimed that a local ordinance violated his substantive due process rights by limiting the number of vehicles that were allowed to wait for service at his station. Id. at 1240. Pearson, Curto, Lakewood, and Harris are all consistent with the Supreme Court’s substantive due process jurisprudence. Oddly, the Sixth Circuit also has a line of recent cases in which it holds that substantive due process protects only fundamental rights, and affords no protection to state action that arbitrarily or capriciously deprives persons of their economic interests or contractual rights. See Charles v. Baesler, 910 F.2d 1349, 1352-56 (6th Cir.1990) ; Sutton v. Cleveland Bd. of Educ., 958 F.2d
```
What is the most suitable continuation to the opinion? Your options are:
A. holding right to testify was federal constitutional right
B. holding that plaintiff state employees contract right to be discharged only for cause was not protected by due process clause because it did not rise to level of fundamental right
C. holding that plaintiff state employees contractual right to promotion was not protected by constitutional guarantee of substantive due process because right was not fundamental
D. holding right to be fundamental
E. holding that the right to drive is not a fundamental right
Reply with [A, B, C, D, E] only.