Read the following excerpt from a US court opinion:
```
alleges that CUNY’s conduct violated the Fifth and Fourteenth Amendments of the United States Constitution. Compl. ¶¶ 9396. These claims are barred by the Eleventh Amendment. The Second Circuit has decisively held that CUNY and its senior colleges, like Hunter College, are “arms of the state,” which are immune from suit under the Eleventh Amendment. Clissuras, 359 F.3d at 83; see also Jackson v. City Univ. of New York, No. 05-Civ.-8712, 2006 WL 1751247, at *2 (S.D.N.Y. June 23, 2006) (Rakoff, J.). And neither of the aforementioned exceptions — statutory abrogation or prospective injunctive relief from a state official — applies to a direct constitutional claim brought directly against a state entity. Santiago v. New York State Dept. of Corr. Services, 945 F.2d 25, 30-32 (2d Cir.1991) ; Garcia v. Paylock, 13-CV-2868, 2014 WL
```
What is the most suitable continuation to the opinion? Your options are:
A. holding that the fourteenth amendment was not an unequivocal expression of congressional intent to abrogate states immunity and reversing district courts rejection of new yorks eleventh amendment argument
B. holding that congress exceeded its authority under  5 of the fourteenth amendment in attempting to abrogate the states eleventh amendment immunity in adea suits
C. holding that congress may abrogate a states immunity pursuant to its enforcement power under  5 of the fourteenth amendment
D. holding that the tia does not abrogate states immunity under the eleventh amendment
E. holding that the nyshrl does not waive the new yorks eleventh amendment immunity to suit in federal court
Reply with [A, B, C, D, E] only.