With no explanation, chose the best option from "A", "B", "C" or "D". brings a claim pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983, arguing that the "continuing assessment and collection” of the local share assessment "constitutes an intentional, knowing, and deliberate violation” of Mount Airy's Equal Protection rights. See Mount Airy's Amended Complaint, 6/17/2015, at -14. Although this- Court has exclusive jurisdiction "to hear any challenge to or to render a declaratory judgment concerning the constitutionality of” the Gaming Act, we lack original jurisdiction over Mount Airy's Section 1983 claim. 4 Pa.C.S. § 1904; see generally Penna. State Troopers Ass'n v. Penna. Gaming Control Bd., 591 Pa. 561, 92 al Revenue Code’s personal exemptions, deductions, and other tax preferences violated the Uniformity Clause); Kelley v. Kalodner, 320 Pa. 180, 181 A. 598, 602 (1935) (<HOLDING>). 5 . At oral argument, counsel for the

A: holding that the statute as applied violates the commerce clause
B: holding that a graduatedrate income tax violates the uniformity clause
C: holding that rluipa violates establishment clause
D: holding a state cannot impose an income tax on indians whose income is solely from reservation sources
B.