With no explanation, chose the best option from "A", "B", "C" or "D". S.Ct. 1942, 20 L.Ed.2d 947 (1968)). A narrow exception to the general prohibition of taxpayer standing “applies ... to cases in which a federal taxpayer challenges a congressional appropriation made pursuant to Article I, Section 8 that allegedly violates the Establishment Clause of the First Amendment.” Raiser v. United States, 325 F.3d 1182, 1183-1184 (10th Cir.2002) (internal quotations omitted). The present case does not fall within the exception. The Court believes that the NMCGA lacks standing to challenge the attorneys’ fees provision, because it has not demonstrated that it suffered any injury in fact beyond the USFS’ allegedly “illegal” use of tax dollars to settle the fees along with the merits. See Diamond v. Charles, 476 U.S. 54, 70-71, 106 S.Ct. 1697, 90 L.Ed.2d 48 (1986) (<HOLDING>); Kola Nut Travel, Inc. v. United States, 72

A: holding merely that the evidence was sufficient to support the award of attorneys fees
B: holding that a partys status as an intervenor at trial was insufficient alone to confer standing to appeal absent the defendants participation because the intervenor failed independently to satisfy the requirements of article iii
C: holding an intervenor in the underlying district court case lacked article iii standing to pursue an appeal where the only remaining controversy in the suit was a dispute over the award of attorneys fees because the fee award was wholly unrelated to the subject matter of the litigation
D: holding that it was not an abuse of discretion for the court to deny an award of attorneys fees to the wife
C.