Read the following excerpt from a US court opinion:
```
1439 & n. 11 (1995) ("It is well known that some of the most insuperable barriers in the great race of competition are the result of government regulation.” (quoting United States v. Syufy Enters., 903 F.2d 659, 673 (9th Cir.1990) (quotation marks omitted))). 11 . See also Wash. Admin. Code §§ 246-310-010(58), -715(2). If a planning area's net need is negative, the Department may revoke existing certificates of need. See Wash. Admin. Code §§ 246-310-715(2), -755(a). 12 . At worst, capacity expansion, if motivated by a specific intent to monopolize with a dangerous probability of success, might be attempted monopolization under Sherman Act § 2, but that could not be decided on a facial challenge and thus could not warrant preemption. See Fisher, 475 U.S. at 270 n. 2, 106 S.Ct. 1045 ; Copperweld, 467 U.S. at 774-75, 104 S.Ct.
```
What is the most suitable continuation to the opinion? Your options are:
A. holding that taxpayer was still required to go through tax refund procedure despite facial constitutional challenge to state intangibles tax
B. holding that the alc may not rule upon a facial challenge to the constitutionality of a regulation or statute but may rule upon an asapplied challenge
C. recognizing that courts should exercise judicial restraint in a facial challenge
D. holding that an allegation of monopolization or attempted monopolization would go beyond the scope of the facial preemption challenge presented here
E. holding that exhaustion of arbitration procedure is not necessary before the district court could consider a facial constitutional challenge
Reply with [A, B, C, D, E] only.