With no explanation, chose the best option from "A", "B", "C" or "D". Amendment immunity. College Savings Bank, 131 F.3d at 361. Chavez and her amici have offered no distinction, and we perceive none, between her copyright infringement claim and any other tangible or intangible interests that could give rise to Eleventh Amendment abrogation provisions in this way. Chavez also asserts that the University’s actions deprived her of property without substantive due process. In modern judicial history, substantive due process has had nothing to do with property rights claims, and we are not about to extend this judicially-created doctrine simply to assure private parties of a remedy against unconsenting states in federal court. Perhaps this cont A); Aaron v. Kansas, 115 F.3d 813 (10th Cir.1997) (FLSA); Wilsom-Jones v. Caviness, 99 F.3d 203 (6th Cir.1996) (<HOLDING>). But see College Savings Bank v. Florida

A: holding issues within scope of administrative hearing are within the reviewing courts purview
B: holding an arbitration tribunal fell within the purview of section 1782
C: holding that the flsa is not within the purview of section 5 of the fourteenth amendment
D: holding under flsa
C.