With no explanation, chose the best option from "A", "B", "C" or "D". 252 (1978) (“Common-law courts traditionally have vindicated deprivations of certain ‘absolute’ rights that are not shown to have caused actual injury through the award of a nominal sum of money.”); Matusick v. Erie Cty. Water Auth., 757 F.3d 31, 64 (2d Cir.2014) (“It is well established that an award of nominal damages is not discretionary where a substantive constitutional right has been violated.”) (citation omitted); Gibeau v. Nellis, 18 F.3d 107, 110-11 (2d Cir.1994) (same); Smith v. Coughlin, 748 F.2d 783, 789 (2d Cir.1984) (“even when a litigant fails to prove actual com-pensable injury, he is entitled to an award of nominal damages upon proof of violation of a substantive constitutional right”); Birnbaum, 436 F.Supp. at 987, aff'd in part, rev’d in part, 588 F.2d at 333-35 (<HOLDING>). '■ By making the deprivation of such rights

A: holding that chilling effect claim must still be rooted in specific present objective harm or a threat of specific future harm to convey standing
B: holding that defendant cannot suffer compensable harm when enjoined from an unlawful activity
C: holding that sexual assault of a minor resulting in psychological harm may be compensable under the tca even in the absence of personal injury
D: recognizing that violation of privacy right even without objective harm is still compensable
D.