Read the following excerpt from a US court opinion:
```
that zoning and land use issues are traditionally significant to states. Thus, it is often appropriate for federal courts to abstain from deciding land use issues. Addiction Specialists, 411 F.3d at 409. Land-use policy is an area where “the tenets of federalism are particularly strong”'—so strong, in fact, that the Third Circuit had to specifically point out that federal courts should not automatically abstain in cases involving land use regulation. Izzo v. Borough of River Edge, 843 F.2d 765, 769 (3d Cir.1988). As Justice Alito said when sitting on the Third Circuit, “[l]and-use decisions are matters of local concern” and a federal court should not act as a “zoning board of appeals.” United Artists Theatre Circuit, Inc. v. Township of Warrington, 316 F.3d 392, 402 (3d. Cir.2003) . In land use cases, of course, an important
```
What is the most suitable continuation to the opinion? Your options are:
A. holding that the judiciary may direct appropriate process to the executive
B. holding forcible extraction of the contents of defendants stomach shocks the conscience and violates due process
C. holding that the shocks the conscience test was appropriate to evaluate whether executive conduct violated the substantive due process clause in a landuse decision
D. holding forced stomach pumping shocks the conscience and violates substantive due process
E. holding that plaintiff must allege conduct so arbitrary and unreasonable that it shocks the conscience in order to state substantive due process claim in context of social workers alleged interference with parents custody rights
Reply with [A, B, C, D, E] only.