Read the following excerpt from a US court opinion:
```
UMBC adopted a policy that addresses Plaintiffs’ facial constitutional challenge, namely by revising the policy to no longer allow university administrators to relocate an event for any reason. Additionally, and more importantly in light of the Fourth Circuit’s reasoning in Valero, there is no evidence in the record that UMBC has any intention to reenact its former Policy on Facilities Use. “Defendants have made the [revised Policy on Facilities Use] as public and as permanent as possible” by formally changing the policy, alerting the Court to the revision, and updating their public website to include the revised policy. Alpha Iota Omega Christian Fraternity v. Moeser, No. 1:04CV00765, 2006 WL 1286186, at *4, 2006 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 28065, at *16 (M.D.N.C. May 4, 2006) (unpublished) . Accordingly, Plaintiffs’ motion for summary
```
What is the most suitable continuation to the opinion? Your options are:
A. recognizing that it is not essential for there to be a direct threat of litigation in order to invoke the declaratory judgment act
B. holding that where the question to be resolved in the declaratory judgment action will be decided in a pending action it is inappropriate to grant a declaratory judgment
C. holding that a court may reach the merits in a declaratory judgment action when an agency decision although a notice or advisory opinion can affect property uses
D. recognizing that the court would be engaging in purely advisory theoretical analysis if it were to enter a declaratory judgment on the constitutionality of a nonexistent policy and refusing to do so at 4 2006 us dist lexis 28065 at 2627
E. recognizing that the declaratory judgment act is procedural in nature and not an extension of federal court jurisdiction
Reply with [A, B, C, D, E] only.