In this task, you will be shown a prompt from a judicial decision and multiple holding statements derived from citations following text in a legal decision.  Holdings represent the governing legal rule when the law is applied to a particular set of facts. There are five answer choices for each citing text. The correct answer is the holding statement that corresponds to the citing text. The four incorrect answers are other holding statements. You should find the correct option. There is a <HOLDING> token in the position of the citing text prompt where the holding statement was extracted.

Q: 203, 216, 85 S.Ct. 398, 13 L.Ed.2d 233 (1964) (“The Board’s power [to order remedies] is a broad discretionary one, subject to limited judicial review.”); McKinney ex rel. N.L.R.B. v. Southern Bakeries, LLC, 786 F.3d 1119, 1125 (8th Cir. 2015) (noting the NLRB’s broad remedial powers to remedy employer violations in the shape of unfair labor practices); Medallion Kitchens, Inc. v. NLRB, 811 F.2d 456, 460 (8th Cir. 1987) (observing that the NLRA affords “the Board broad .latitude in fashioning remedies for unfair labor practices”). To illustrate further, should an employer commit misconduct while she is at the bargaining table, so to speak, the NLRB may mandate the employer to reimburse the corresponding labor organization for bargaining expenses. See HTH Corp., 361 NLRB No. 65 (2014) (<HOLDING>). With respect to labor schedules and other 
 Holding statements: (A) holding there was no jury trial right where court ordered reinstatement and back pay to teachers fired after desegregation order in discrimination case back pay is equitable (B) recognizing nlrbs power to order reinstatement front pay back pay wideranging ceaseanddesist orders furnishing the union with relevant information and noticereading requirement among other remedies (C) holding that back pay may be awarded to the date of judgment (D) holding that an award of back pay is an issue for the court (E) holding in an adea case that when after acquired evidence of employee wrongdoing cut off accrual of back pay reinstatement or the award of front pay was inappropriate

A: (B)
****
Q: child abuse or neglect or who testifies or otherwise participates in a judicial proceeding arising from a report, petition, or investigation of alleged child abuse or neglect is immune from civil or criminal liability that might otherwise be incurred or imposed. Id. § 261.106(a) (emphasis added). The dissent also correctly points out that “Immunity from liability and immunity from suit are two distinct principles.” Tex. Dep’t of Transp. v. Jones, 8 S.W.3d 636, 638 (Tex.1999). Finally, the dissent even recognizes that “[ijmmunity from liability is an affirmative defense, while immunity from suit deprives a court of subject matter jurisdiction.” Tex. Dep’t of Parks & Wildlife v. Miranda, 133 S.W.3d 217, 224 (Tex.2004); see also City of Hous. v. Williams, 353 S.W.3d 128, 134 (Tex.2011) (<HOLDING>); Harris County Hosp. Dist. v. Tomball Reg’l 
 Holding statements: (A) holding that the oneyear bar contained in  2255 acts as an affirmative defense and not a jurisdictional bar (B) holding bjecause immunity from liability constitutes an affirmative defense not a jurisdictional bar only immunity from suit is properly before us today (C) recognizing that under texas law governmental immunity embraces two principles immunity from liability and immunity from suit (D) holding that qualified immunity is not merely immunity from damages but also immunity from suit (E) holding immunity from liability is not jurisdictional

A: (B)
****
Q: cause to believe that a stolen lawnmower may be found in a garage will not support a warrant to search an upstairs bedroom, probable cause to believe that undocumented aliens are being transported in a van will not justify a warrantless search of a suitcase. Probable cause to believe that a container placed in the trunk of a taxi contains contraband or evidence does not justify a search of the entire cab. Ross, 456 U.S. at 824, 102 S.Ct. 2157 (emphasis added); see Almeida-Sanchez v. United States, 413 U.S. 266, 269, 93 S.Ct. 2535, 37 L.Ed.2d 596 (1973) (acknowledging that “the Carroll doctrine does not declare a field day for the police in searching automobiles. Automobile or no automobile, there must be probable cause for the search.”); cf. Ross, 456 U.S. at 825, 102 S.Ct. 2157 (<HOLDING>). Chambers v. Maroney, 399 U.S. 42, 90 S.Ct. 
 Holding statements: (A) holding that the scope of a search under the carroll doctrine is no broader and no narrower than a magistrate could legitimately authorize by warrant (B) holding unconstitutional a search executed on a warrant that failed to list with particularity the items to be seized even where the supporting application contained such a list and the warrant was approved by a magistrate (C) holding that an arrest warrant can authorize entry into a dwelling only where the officials executing the warrant have reasonable or probable cause to believe the person named in the warrant is within (D) holding that search of backpack constituted a search of defendants person and was not authorized by search warrant for premises (E) holding warrant describing items to be seized as a twostory blue house invalid where petitioner did not alert the magistrate to the defect  and the court therefore cannot know whether the magistrate was aware of the scope of the search he was authorizing

A:
(A)
****