Read the following excerpt from a US court opinion:
```
principles of federalism and the Commerce Clause. Specifically, they contend that Act No. 26 may affect essential terms of insurance agreements entered in other states. To the extent that Act No. 26 is not limited to South Carolina, they claim the General Assembly improperly imposed its “public policy objections to the application of traditional occurrence definitions to construction cases involving faulty workmanship, on sister states.” We find several procedural barriers prevent the Amici from presenting this argument. The Amici lack standing to assert their challenge, and their claim is not ripe for review as they posit a hypothetical scenario, which Petitioner does not raise and which may not come to fruition. See James v. Anne's Inc., 390 S.C. 188, 193, 701 S.E.2d 730, 732 (2010) . Justice BEATTY (concurring in part and
```
What is the most suitable continuation to the opinion? Your options are:
A. holding where a party failed to raise an issue clearly implicated in the initial decision of the trial court our mandate  acted to prevent that party from raising this issue on remand
B. recognizing that justiciability encompasses several doctrines including ripeness mootness and standing and precluding amici from raising an issue not raised by the named party under rule 213 scacr
C. holding that the plaintiff was precluded from raising the issue for the first time on appeal
D. holding that the court bars a party from raising an issue on remand that  was not raised on appeal
E. holding that failure to raise issue at district court forecloses party from raising same issue on appeal
Reply with [A, B, C, D, E] only.