With no explanation, chose the best option from "A", "B", "C" or "D". Church case have filed a brief in support of the judgment below. Because, however, neither the State nor the Federal Government appealed from that part of the judgment involving the Lutheran Church plaintiffs, we do not address their claims. 15 In our order setting these cases for oral argument, we postponed the question of jurisdiction until consideration of the merits. See 454 U. S. 961 (1981). 16 In Clark, the Court of Claims simply ordered relief based on its earlier decision in another case. In that earlier decision, the court had declared the challenged statutory provision unconstitutional. See Gentry v. United States, 212 Ct. Cl. 1, 546 F. 2d 343 (1976), rehearing denied, 212 Ct. Cl. 27, 551 F. 2d 852 (1977). 17 See Order (filed Apr. 3, 1981), reprinted in J. S. App. 45, 46 (<HOLDING>). 18 The court’s analysis of Category I and II

A: holding cal un ins code ann  6345a west supp 1982 unconstitutional but making no direct reference to  3309b
B: holding that an unconstitutional act of congress has no legal effect
C: holding west virginia recidivist statute unconstitutional as applied to require disproportionately severe sentence
D: holding supervisors reference to plaintiff as that white boy was sufficient direct evidence of discriminatory intent for mixedmotives jury instruction
A.