With no explanation, chose the best option from "A", "B", "C" or "D". 371, 378-79, 91 S.Ct. 780, 786-87, 28 L.Ed.2d 113 (1971)): More recently, the Court has refined the exception: “An important government .interest, accompanied by a substantial assurance that the deprivation is not baseless or unwarranted, may in limited cases demanding prompt action justify postponing the opportunity to be heard until after the initial deprivation.” Federal Deposit Ins. Corp. v. Mallen, 486 U.S. 230, 240, 108 S.Ct. 1780, 1787-88, 100 L.Ed.2d 265 (1988). Over the years, the Court has broadened this exception considerably, frequently holding a post-deprivation hearing to be sufficient. Compare Board of Regents, 408 U.S. at 570 n. 7, 92 S.Ct. at 2705 n. 7 (describing use of exception as “rare”), with e.g., Barry v. Barchi, 443 U.S. 55, 99 S.Ct. 2642, 61 L.Ed.2d 365 (1979) (<HOLDING>), and Mallen, 486 U.S. 230, 108 S.Ct. 1780, 100

A: holding that lack of justiciable interest resulted in lack of standing to pursue claim and that lack of standing deprived the trial court of jurisdiction to act
B: recognizing the states interest in preventing deception of consumers
C: holding that states interest in preserving integrity of sport of horse racing justifies lack of predeprivation hearing
D: holding that this lack of any reasonable expectation of continued employment suffices to establish the lack of property in the constitutional sense and hence the lack of a viable due process claim
C.