With no explanation, chose the best option from "A", "B", "C" or "D". the conclusion that the Act bars federal jurisdiction in this case. In Blangeres v. Burlington Northern, Inc., 872 F.2d 327, 328 (9th Cir.1989), we held that even an indirect restraint on tax assessment would violate the Act. The employees in Blangeres sought to enjoin the production of certain records of earnings by the employer corporation to the state taxing authorities. The Blangeres court reasoned that the requested injunction would preclude the taxing authorities from taxing the employees because the authorities would not have the information necessary to conduct the assessment. Id. Thus, the Act prohibits relief where it would result in a restraint on tax assessment even though achieved indirectly. Id.; see also Comenout v. State of Washington, 722 F.2d 574, 577 (9th Cir.1983) (<HOLDING>). The Act has been broadly construed in other

A: holding that a court may award injunctive relief against a state officer
B: holding that the nevada industrial insurance acts exclusive remedy provision did not bar an employees claims for injunctive relief
C: holding that eleventh amendment does not bar federal suit against state official for prospective injunctive relief
D: holding that the act may bar claims of unconstitutional arrests searches and seizures in addition to injunctive relief where the gravamen of the complaint involves enforcement of the state tax scheme
D.