With no explanation, chose the best option from "A", "B", "C" or "D". brief nor Appellants’ counsel at oral argument could articulate the former state of the law that the Horne footnote allegedly changed. This is likely because the proposition explained in Footnote 6 is hardly novel. The Supreme Court has long held that private plaintiffs may not bring suits to enforce statutes that do not provide a private cause of action. In fact, the case cited in Footnote 6, Alexander v. Sandoval, 532 U.S. 275, 121 S.Ct. 1511, 149 L.Ed.2d 517 (2001), stands for that very proposition by holding that a plaintiff cannot bring a disparate impact claim under § 602 of Title VI of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 because the Act does not provide a private right of action for such claim. See also Gonzaga Univ. v. Doe, 536 U.S. 273, 276, 122 S.Ct. 2268, 153 L.Ed.2d 309 (2002) (<HOLDING>). Footnote 6 simply explains that the courts

A: holding that a private plaintiff may not being an action under the family educational rights and privacy act of 1974 because that statute does not create personal rights to enforce under 42 usc  1983
B: holding that claims under 42 usc  1983 are not personal injury tort claims
C: holding that private rights of action to enforce federal law must be created by congress courts may not create a cause of action absent statutory intent
D: holding that civil rights claims at least those arising under 42 usc  1983 were subject to the applicable states personal injury statute of limitations
A.