Read the following excerpt from a US court opinion:
```
Intelligence Agency, 591 F.Supp. 60, 67 (D.D.C.1984), and judges “lack the expertise necessary to second-guess ... agency opinions,” Halperin v. Central Intelligence Agency, 629 F.2d 144, 148 (D.C.Cir.1980) (deferring to the agency’s opinion and holding that certain CIA affidavits provided ample evidence to show potential harm under a limited de novo review). If the court finds that the agency’s affidavits are insufficiently detailed, it should deny summary judgment. Campbell, 164 F.3d at 31 (remanding to the district court to allow the FBI to further “justify” its Exemption 1 claim because its declaration failed to “draw any connection between the documents at issue and the general standards that govern the national security exemption”), remanded to 193 F.Supp.2d 29, 38 (D.D.C.2001) ; Oglesby v. U.S. Dep’t of the Army, 79 F.3d
```
What is the most suitable continuation to the opinion? Your options are:
A. holding that although the first amendment was implicated the regulation compelling disclosure of certain information in advertisements was constitutional as long as it was reasonably related to the states interest
B. holding that the disclosure is a public disclosure within the meaning of the fca if the the prior public disclosure  contained enough information to enable the government to pursue an investigation against the defendant
C. holding that agency could not claim national security disclosure exemption where documents already released to the press
D. holding that where an authorized disclosure is voluntarily made to a nonfederal party whether or not that disclosure is denominated confidential the government waives any claim that the information is exempt from disclosure under the deliberative process privilege
E. holding that a declaration was insufficient by merely concluding without further elaboration that disclosure of the information could reasonably be expected to cause serious damage to national security
Reply with [A, B, C, D, E] only.