With no explanation, chose the best option from "A", "B", "C" or "D". reputation as protected by the Pennsylvania Constitution. Id. at 3-4. The court addressed the juveniles’ assertion that SORNA infringed upon their fundamental right to reputation under the Pennsylvania Constitution pursuant to both a substantive due process analysis and the irrebuttable presumption doctrine, finding these claims interrelated. Id. at 11. Like the York County Court, the Monroe County Court concluded that SORNA unconstitutionally utilized an irrebuttable presumption. It observed that, while the adjudication of delinquency involves a hearing on the facts of the crime, no proceeding addresses the juvenile’s likelihood of reoffense, upon which registration is based. B.B. at 32-36 (relying upon Clayton and D.C. v. School District of Philadelphia, 879 A.2d 408 (Pa.Cmwlth.2005) (<HOLDING>)). The court opined that the limited provision

A: holding that a students private school tuition should be reimbursed where parent did not unilaterally place student in private school because the school district tacitly consented to the private school attendance before proposing a different placement
B: holding district court lacked authority to order placement at a school not approved by the state
C: holding that an unconstitutional irrebuttable presumption existed where school district automatically excluded from regular classrooms students returning from juvenile delinquency placement or criminal conviction
D: holding that schools have no duty under the due process clause to protect students from assaults by other students even where the school knew or should have known of the danger presented
C.