Read the following excerpt from a US court opinion:
```
has a racially disproportionate impact.” (emphasis in original)); Palmer v. Thompson, 403 U.S. 217, 224, 91 S.Ct. 1940, 29 L.Ed.2d 438 (1971) (“[N]o case in this Court has held that a legislative act may violate equal protection solely because of the motivations of the men who voted for it.”). See also Marsh v. Newton, 134 F.3d 383, at *2 (10th Cir.1998) (unpublished) (“‘To establish a gender-based claim under the Equal Protection Clause, [the plaintiff] must, .as a threshold matter, demonstrate that [the plaintiff has] been treated differently by a state actor than others who are similarly situated simply because [the plaintiff] belong[s] to a particular class.’” (quoting Keevan v. Smith, 100 F.3d 644, 647-48 (8th Cir.1996))); Barney v. Pulsipher, 143 F.3d 1299, 1312 (10th Cir.1998) . If the plaintiff can produce evidence of
```
What is the most suitable continuation to the opinion? Your options are:
A. holding equal protection under the federal constitution applies to similarly situated persons
B. holding that the equal protection clause is essentially a direction that all persons similarly situated should be treated alike
C. holding that equal protection claim by prisoner lacked merit where prisoner not similarly situated to others who were permitted to engage in relevant conduct
D. holding that black residents failed to state an equal protection claim where they did not allege the existence of a similarly situated group of white residents who were treated differently
E. holding that to assert a viable equal protection claim plaintiffs must first make a threshold showing that they were differently treated from others who were similarly situated to them
Reply with [A, B, C, D, E] only.