With no explanation, chose the best option from "A", "B", "C" or "D". F.2d 1359, 1365 n. 10 (7th Cir.1985) (noting that “[i]t could be argued that the Court’s decision in Great American Fed. Savings & Loan Assn. v. Novotny, 442 U.S. 366 ... [99 S.Ct. 2345, 60 L.Ed.2d 957] (1979), implicitly recognized that § 1985(3) could reach a conspiracy founded on a gender-based animus. See id. at 389 n. 6 ... [99 S.Ct. at 2357] (White, J., dissenting)”); Dv. Wisconsin Gas Co., 760 F.2d 1474, 1485-87 (7th Cir.1985) (in rejecting handicapped as a protected class, distinguishes “race, ethnic origin, sex, religion, or politics”); Schultz v. Sundberg, 759 F.2d 714, 718 (9th Cir.1985) (in rejecting Alaska state representatives as a protected class, distinguishes classes that already receive heightened equal protection clause scrutiny). But see Grimes, 776 F.2d at 1366-67 (<HOLDING>). One of the cases denying relief under §

A: recognizing courts obligation to construe meaning of relatives
B: recognizing scotts admonition to construe the classbased animus requirement narrowly
C: recognizing that in areas historically legislated by the states the courts must narrowly construe any express preemption clauses so that if an ambiguity exists as to preemption nonpreemption should be found
D: holding that courts should liberally construe the requirements of rule 3
B.