With no explanation, chose the best option from "A", "B", "C" or "D". T.I.A.S. No. 7990; Convention for the Conservation of Migratory Birds and Their Environment, Nov. 26,1976, U.S.-U.S.S.R., 92 Stat. 3110, T.I.A.S. No. 9073, 16 U.S.C. § 703; Migratory Bird Treaty Act, 16 U.S.C. § 703-712. North Dakota has also received federal financial support for the acquisition of land for hunting, and in return, North Dakota has ceded some authority over its use of state hunting license fees. See Pittman-Robertson Wildlife Restoration Act, 16 U.S.C. § 669, et seq. In areas where federal regulatory schemes or federal funding is involved, most circuit courts have held that this federal interaction militates against a state’s assertion that it has a “special sovereignty interest” in a particular activity. See e.g., TFWS, Inc. v. Schaefer, 242 F.3d 198 (4th Cir.2001) (<HOLDING>). Accordingly, the Court finds the Coeur

A: holding the governors emergency powers to take private property for the public benefit was a special sovereignty interest but the relief requested was not so much of a divestiture of the states sovereignty to render the suit as one against the state itself
B: holding states property interest in right to profits from a recreational land lease did not rise to the level of a special sovereignty interest
C: holding that the challenge to a university regulation was moot because the regulation had been substantially amended
D: holding a states regulation of liquor was not a special sovereignty interest in part because of the pervasive federal interest in the regulation of liquor
D.