With no explanation, chose the best option from "A", "B", "C" or "D". citizenship. Id. at 80-81, 99 S.Ct. at 1596. C. In light of Ambach, we think that, in September of 1986, it did not violate any clearly established federal constitutional right for an education official to terminate a teacher’s employment in conformity with a statute barring aliens from holding teaching positions. While it is at least arguable that the Puerto Rico statute has a somewhat broader reach than its New York counterpart, approved in Ambach, the Court has not hesitated to uphold statutes that barred aliens totally from serving in certain government positions. See, e.g., Cabell, 454 U.S. at 441-42, 102 S.Ct. at 741 (deputy probation officers); Foley, 435 U.S. at 299-300, 98 S.Ct. at 1072-73 (state troopers); see also Cervantes v. Guerra, 651 F.2d 974, 981-82 (5th Cir.1981) (<HOLDING>); cf. Campos v. FCC, 650 F.2d 890, 893-94 (7th

A: holding that a community action agencys bylaws excluding aliens from service on the board of directors did not deny equal protection
B: holding that doctrine does not violate equal protection
C: holding a similar peer review confidentiality statute did not deny the plaintiffs equal protection
D: holding transfer rule did not violate federal equal protection
A.