With no explanation, chose the best option from "A", "B", "C" or "D". v. Robins, — U.S. -, 136 S.Ct. 1540, 1547, 194 L.Ed.2d 635 (2016) (quoting Steel Co. v. Citizens for Better Env’t, 523 U.S. 83, 103, 118 S.Ct. 1003, 140 L.Ed.2d 210 (1998)). But an interest is not “legally protected” or cognizable for the purpose of establishing standing when its asserted legal source—whether constitutional, statutory, common law or otherwise—does not apply or does not exist. The D.C, Circuit has explained “if the plaintiffs claim has no foundation in law, he has no legally protected interest and thus no standing to sue.” Claybrook v. Slater, 111 F.3d 904, 907 (D.C. Cir. 1997); see also McConnell v. FEC, 540 U.S. 93, 124 S.Ct. 619, 157 L.Ed.2d 491 (2003), overruled in part on other grounds, Citizens United v. FEC, 558 U.S. 310, 130 S.Ct. 876, 175 L.Ed.2d 753 (2010) (<HOLDING>); Arjay Assocs., Inc. v. Bush, 891 F.2d 894,

A: holding that a group of litigants lacked standing because their interest was premised on a mistaken interpretation of legal precedent that did not apply the groups claim of injury  was therefore not to a legally cognizable right
B: holding that a condition was precedent to performance because the contract language did not explicitly state that it was precedent to formation
C: holding that plaintiffs lacked standing because the case was not ripe for adjudication
D: holding that a contractor lacked standing on the theory of reputational injury
A.