With no explanation, chose the best option from "A", "B", "C" or "D". argument that Intervenors’ lack Article III standing to maintain their appeal absent the government. 1. Intervenors’ Standing As noted above, Public Lands Council and American Farm Bureau Federation intervened on behalf of the BLM in the district court and now pursue this appeal. Although the BLM filed a notice of appeal, it subsequently abandoned its appeal. The end result is that Intervenors seek to defend the 2006 Regulations — regulations that the BLM itself no longer seeks to defend. While this situation presents an unusual circumstance, it is not one without precedent, and it is well established that the government is not the only party who has standing to defend the validity of federal regulations. See, e.g., Kootenai Tribe of Idaho v. Veneman, 313 F.3d 1094, 1110 (9th Cir.2002) (<HOLDING>); see also Didrickson v. U.S. Dep’t of the

A: holding that intervenors could appeal and challenge the grant of injunctive relief by defending the governments action against alleged violations of nepa when the federal defendants decided not to appeal
B: holding that a court may award injunctive relief against a state officer
C: holding that under the law of the case doctrine an issue of fact or law decided on appeal may not be reexamined by the appellate court on a subsequent appeal
D: holding that defendants failure to appeal the voluntariness of a plea constitutes waiver of the issue on subsequent appeal
A.