With no explanation, chose the best option from "A", "B", "C" or "D". to the extent that claim, by way of Counts II and III, sought prospective relief based on an ongoing violation of federal law. Counts IV and V of MCN’s amended complaint, however, are of a different ilk. Those counts, which respectively request return of the seized cigarettes or, in the alternative, their monetary value, undoubtedly bring into issue the past liability of OTC’s Commissioners, and thus seek retrospective relief. When a state official is sued in his or her official capacity, the Eleventh Amendment bars retrospective relief, usually in the form of money damages, because any such judgment is deemed directed at the state as the real party in interest rather than the nominal officer. See Edelman v. Jordan, 415 U.S. 651, 664-71, 94 S.Ct. 1347, 39 L.Ed.2d 662 (1974) (<HOLDING>). Here, the Oklahoma state treasury would be

A: recognizing that claims against a state under  1981 are barred by the eleventh amendment
B: holding the eleventh amendment barred the retroactive payment of state benefits wrongfully withheld
C: holding the eleventh amendment barred that portion of a district court order directing retroactive payment of aid benefits from the illinois treasury
D: recognizing that section 1981 claims against a state agency are barred by the eleventh amendment
B.