Read the following excerpt from a US court opinion:
```
the responsibility to ‘take Care that the Laws be faithfully executed.’ ” (quoting U.S. Const, art. II, § 3)). The Executive has a unique need to access the federal courts in order to fulfill this constitutional responsibility for ensuring that public rights are enforced, and such an executive enforcement action is a “Case” or “Controversy” that satisfies Article III. See Steel Co. v. Citizens for a Better Env’t, 523 U.S. 83, 102 n. 4, 118 S.Ct. 1003, 140 L.Ed.2d 210 (1998) (confirming that the Court’s standing jurisprudence “derives from Article III and not Article II,” even when it has “an impact on Presidential powers”). Therefore, federal courts have jurisdiction over such executive actions under Article III. See In re Debs, 158 U.S. 564, 586, 15 S.Ct. 900, 39 L.Ed. 1092 (1895) . There is only one way for a plaintiff to
```
What is the most suitable continuation to the opinion? Your options are:
A. holding that it is not within the province of any court unless expressly authorized by law to review the determination of the political branch of the government to exclude a given alien
B. holding that when the government acts to enforce public rights the mere fact that the government has no pecuniary interest in the controversy is not sufficient to exclude it from the courts
C. holding that even assuming government was a party in interest in the delaware case and that the party in interest status was sufficient to make the delaware plan binding upon it the government did not receive adequate notice that confirmation might affect its pecuniary interest
D. holding that when the federal government puts into play a series of events which result in a taking of private property the fact that the government acts through an  agent does not absolve it from the responsibility and the consequences of its actions
E. holding where 1 the government provided the defendant with all the necessary drugmaking materials 2 the government provided instructions on how to make the drugs and 3 the defendant sought out the materials and help from the undercover government agents the case set the outer limits to which the government may go in the quest to ferret out and prosecute crimes but the governments conduct did not rise to the level of a due process violation
Reply with [A, B, C, D, E] only.