Read the following excerpt from a US court opinion:
```
and no argument that its increasing the fee contravened state law. Although the plaintiff couched its appellate arguments in terms of whether the unilateral amendment of the alleged contract was “lawfully authorized,” the only question was whether the State would breach the alleged contract that the license represented by its increasing the fee, not whether the State would act contrary to statute in doing so. See id. at 77-78, 308 S.W.2d at 840. The Dodgen court held that the State was not so bound; in so holding, the court distinguished the case from those in which a plaintiff seeks to determine whether State officials are acting outside their statutory or constitutional authority. See id. at 78-79, 308 S.W.2d at 840 (distinguishing Cobb, 144 Tex. at 365-66, 190 S.W.2d at 712 ). In the case before us, the protesting
```
What is the most suitable continuation to the opinion? Your options are:
A. holding that a damages suit against a state officer in his official capacity was barred because it was functionally a suit against the state
B. holding the rule against taxpayer standing applies both to federal taxpayers and state taxpayers challenging state tax or spending decisions simply by virtue of their status as state taxpayers
C. holding that taxpayers failure to follow state requirement that he report change in federal income tax did not except state tax liability from discharge
D. holding a suit against an agency of the state is a suit against the state
E. holding that suit by taxpayers alleging that they fell outside statutorily defined class subject to occupation tax so that states attempt to collect such tax from them was illegal was not suit against state
Reply with [A, B, C, D, E] only.