With no explanation, chose the best option from "A", "B", "C" or "D". and the victorious private party submitted a request for fees under the EAJA the court that received the petition would be obliged to conduct a full-scale hearing on the merits in order to assess the strength of the justification for the government’s original action. (Indeed, if government counsel were aware that such hearings would likely be necessary, they would be significantly less inclined to capitulate in the first place, figuring that they might as well contest the merits of the claim if they were forced to contest the government’s liability for fees.) It seems unlikely that Congress intended (or would have wanted) the Act to spawn otherwise unnecessary proceedings of this kind. 61 . See text at note 56 supra. 62 . Cf. Goldhaber v. Foley, 698 F.2d 193,197 (3d Cir.1983) (<HOLDING>). 63 . Because there is no question, in the

A: holding that the act must be interpreted so as to charge the united states with that portion of the expenses attributable to its unjustifiable positions footnote omitted
B: holding that the fourteenth amendment which makes persons bom in the united states and subject to its jurisdiction citizens of the united states and requires that representatives be apportioned among the states based on population excluding indians not taxed did not make an indian a citizen of the united states
C: holding the act inapplicable to the united states in its role as employer
D: holding that because 526 of the purchase funds were tainted property  the united states interest was limited to this portion
A.