With no explanation, chose the best option from "A", "B", "C" or "D". At no time in this litigation have the rights of anyone other than the individually named plaintiffs and the certified class been asserted. As a result, appellees’ “overbreadth” challenge is based exclusively on a claim that the honorarium ban is overbroad precisely because it applies to them, and the instant case involves the assertion of first-party rights of parties presently before the Court. Appellees’ facial challenge, therefore, fails on the merits, in view of controlling precedent from the Supreme Court and this circuit which place cases such as this one outside the substantive bounds of the second type of facial challenge, i.e., the First Amendment overbreadth doctrine. See New York State Club Ass’n v. New York City, 487 U.S. 1, 11, 108 S.Ct. 2225, 2233, 101 L.Ed.2d 1 (1988) (<HOLDING>); Sanjour v. EPA, 984 F.2d at 442

A: holding that a claim not raised before the trial court will not be considered for the first time on appeal
B: holding that a claim under the first amendment overbreadth doctrine will not succeed unless  the challenged statute itself will significantly compromise recognized first amendment protections of parties not before the court
C: holding that overbreadth claimant must still show that enforcement of the challenged statute against him is actual or imminent and quoting prime media v city of brentwood 485 f3d 343 350 6th cir 2007 because overbreadth creates an exception only to the prudential standing inquiry the supreme court has made clear that the injury in fact requirement still applies to overbreadth claims under the first amendment
D: holding that the first amendment does not by itself give rise to a cause of action for damages
B.