Read the following excerpt from a US court opinion:
```
plaintiffs, the allegations do not satisfy their minimal pleading requirements. Accordingly, plaintiffs do not satisfy the requirements of prudential standing, and their Equal Protection claim is dismissed. Even if the court were to conclude that plaintiffs had standing to pursue their Equal Protection claim, it would nonetheless fail on the merits. As defendants correctly point out, any burden on the right to interstate travel here is minimal and insufficient to constitute a deprivation. They cite several cases in support of their contention that “something more than negligible or minimal impacts on the right to travel is required ...” in order to invalidate a state action allegedly discriminating against the fundamental right to travel. Kan. v. U.S., 16 F.3d 436, 442 (D.C.Cir.1994) ; see also Barber v. State of Haw., 42 F.3d
```
What is the most suitable continuation to the opinion? Your options are:
A. holding that a traffic stop is valid under the fourth amendment if the stop is based on an observed traffic violation or if the police officer has reasonable articulable suspicion that a traffic or equipment violation has occurred or is occurring
B. holding that the wright amendment an air traffic regulation restricting air traffic from love field in the dallasforth worth area did not violate the right to travel because any impact on interstate travel  even air travel to and from the dallasfort worth area  is negligible
C. holding that an air traffic controllers failure to report weather conditions from another faa location to a planes pilot was not negligent
D. holding that the construction of a median in a roadway that causes traffic traveling to and from an abutting property to travel a cireuitous route does not constitute a compensable taking under indiana eminent domain law
E. holding that time was compensable where the crew was required to travel in the employers vehicle to job sites
Reply with [A, B, C, D, E] only.