With no explanation, chose the best option from "A", "B", "C" or "D". equal terms provision codifies the SmithLukumi line of precedent,” the court reasoned, so “a violation of § (b)’s equal treatment provision, consistent with the analysis employed in Lukumi, must undergo strict scrutiny.” Id. at 1232. The municipality’s proffered justification for excluding churches and synagogues from the business district — the “interests of retail synergy” — flunked the compelling-interest test. Id. at 1235. The Eleventh Circuit completed its analysis in Midrash Sephardi by considering whether the equal-terms provision was a permissible use of Congress’s § 5 enforcement power as understood in City of Boeme. The court concluded that it was, largely because the equal-terms provision codified the Supreme Court’s Free Exercise Clause jurisprudence. Id. at 1236-40 (<HOLDING>). In two subsequent cases, the Eleventh Circuit

A: holding no violation of federal establishment clause
B: holding that  2000ccbl reflects freeexercise jurisprudence and is consistent with existing equal protection and establishment clause caselaw
C: holding that doctrine does not violate equal protection
D: holding that discrimination based on religion is subjected to strict scrutiny whether a claim arises under the establishment clause the free exercise clause of equal protection clause
B.