Task: Text Completion
Input (English): would violate the restrictive covenant, which can be enforced by both the IVGID and private property owners within the 1968 property. The restrictive covenant specifies that the beaches are to be “held, maintained and used by [IVGID] ... only for the purposes of recreation by, and for the benefit of,[the 1968 property] owners and their tenants .... ” Although there have been some de minimis exceptions, the beaches have been used almost exclusively by owners and tenants of the 1968 property. That only a limited set of property owners may access the beaches for limited, non-expressive purposes also weighs against finding the beaches to be a traditional public forum. See Int’l Soc’y for Krishna Consciousness, Inc. v. Lee, 505 U.S. 672, 682-83, 112 S.Ct. 2701, 120 L.Ed.2d 541 (1992) (<HOLDING>). With de minimis exceptions, the “actual use 
 Holding statements: (A) holding that an airport terminal is not a public forum partly because port authority management considered the principal purpose of the terminals to be the facilitation of passenger air travel not the promotion of expression (B) holding under texas version of the recognition act that public policy exception is not triggered simply because the body of foreign law upon which the judgment is based is different from the law of the forum or because the foreign law is more favorable to the judgment creditor than the law of the forum (C) holding since the sidewalk is a nonpublic forum the regulation must be reasonable and not an effort to suppress expression merely because public officials oppose the speakers view (D) holding a violation of the travel act (E) holding no violation of the travel act
Output (English): (A)