With no explanation, chose the best option from "A", "B", "C" or "D". in a foreign nation where only quasi-sovereign interests are at stake.” DeCoster, 229 F.3d at 336. Notwithstanding this Circuit’s precedent, the provincial plaintiffs argue that they may bring their claims in a parens patriae capacity because they are provinces, not foreign nations. This distinction is of little consequence, however. The federalism concerns implicated by the relationship between the U.S. States and the U.S. federal government do not exist between foreign provinces and the U.S. federal government. The provinces, as political subdivisions of Ecuador, do not claim and have not shown that they have conceded any of their sovereignty to the U.S. government. See, e.g., State of Sao Paulo of the Federative Republic of Brazil v. Am. Tobacco Co., 919 A.2d 1116, 1122 (Del. 2007) (<HOLDING>). Moreover, “the theoretical underpinning of

A: holding that the fourteenth amendment which makes persons bom in the united states and subject to its jurisdiction citizens of the united states and requires that representatives be apportioned among the states based on population excluding indians not taxed did not make an indian a citizen of the united states
B: holding that the united states was a statutory employer under puerto rico law
C: holding that injured consumers for whom the state sought restitution were not real parties in the states parens patriae suit
D: holding that the republic of panama and state of sao paulo brazil did not have parens patriae standing to bring suit on behalf of their citizens in part because they had retained the full array of sovereign rights that the american states and puerto rico had ceded to the united states government
D.