With no explanation, chose the best option from "A", "B", "C" or "D". that “[njothing in ... the Kansas tort claims act shall be construed as a waiver by the state of Kansas of immunity from suit under the [Eleventh] Amendment”); id. § 39-7,137 (stating same with respect to certain administrative proceedings for Kansas social welfare program). Accordingly, we hold that Kan. Stat. Ann. § 76-723 conferred upon KSU the power to waive Eleventh Amendment immunity. III. In conclusion, we AFFIRM the decision of the district court for the foregoing reasons. 1 . Because neither the bankruptcy court nor the district court relied on § 106(a) of the Bankruptcy Code, we do not address in this case whether it is constitutional. See, e.g., Sacred Heart Hosp. of Norristown v. Pennsylvania (In re Sacred Heart Hosp. of Norristown), 133 F.3d 237, 243-45 (3d Cir.1998) (<HOLDING>); Department of Transp. & Dev. v. PNL Asset

A: holding 11 usc  106a unconstitutional to the extent that it purports to abrogate eleventh amendment immunity
B: holding that congress did not intend to abrogate eleventh amendment immunity in enacting 42 usc  1983
C: holding that the tia does not abrogate states immunity under the eleventh amendment
D: holding that  106a  b offend the eleventh amendment
A.