Read the following excerpt from a US court opinion:
```
courts to referee a political dispute about Puerto Rico’s constitutional limitations on structural changes to high-level political appointments. This we will not and need not do. Cf. El Dia, 963 F.2d at 497 (“Simply because an equitable remedy may be available does not necessarily mean that it must automatically issue.”). Comity concerns are particularly compelling on the facts of this case. Because the very existence of continuing property interests in these high-level political appointments implicates these difficult Commonwealth constitutional questions, the authority to remove these officials — and so the necessity of pre-deprivation procedures — may be obscure prior to litigation. Cf. S. Commons Condo. Ass’n v. Charlie Arment Trucking, Inc., 775 F.3d 82, 85-86 (1st Cir.2014) . Where, as here, the parties not only fail to
```
What is the most suitable continuation to the opinion? Your options are:
A. recognizing that in some circumstances an afterthefact remedy under state law may be adequate
B. holding that in some rcases there is an adequate remedy at law for an attack on an illegal or unconstitutional tax through the tax appeal board
C. holding that in the absence of an adequate state remedy one whose constitutional rights are violated has a direct claim against the state under the state constitution
D. holding that adequate alternative state remedy must provide the possibility of relief under the circumstances
E. recognizing that in certain circumstances inquiry notice may be determined as a matter of law
Reply with [A, B, C, D, E] only.