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.

initiative process.” Doe, 130 S.Ct. at 2819 (citations and quotations omitted). Finally, disclosure requirements may permit accurate record-keeping. “[Djisclo-sure requirements are an essential means of gathering the data necessary to detect violations of ... contribution limitations.” Buckley, 424 U.S. at 68, 96 S.Ct. 612. Such records further enhance the public’s future associational rights by offering voters information about which policies those seeking their vote have previously endorsed. Both the Supreme Court and our court have rejected facial challenges to contribution disclosure requirements in several cases, holding that these substantial interests outweigh the modest burdens that the challenged disclosures impose on First Amendment rights. See, e.g., Doe, 130 S.Ct. at 2820 (<HOLDING>); Family PAC, 685 F.3d at 805-11; Human Life of 
 Holding statements: (A) holding in conflict of laws analysis that it was proper to apply the law of the state of washington as to the measure of damages which involved the substantive rights of the parties (B) holding that federal law applies because judicial estoppel relates to protection of the integrity of the federal judicial process (C) holding that states interest in preserving integrity of sport of horse racing justifies lack of predeprivation hearing (D) holding a state has a substantial interest in regulating the practice of law within the state (E) holding that a state law authorizing private parties to obtain copies of referendum petitions is substantially related to the important interest of preserving the integrity of the electoral process
(E)

otherwise nonremovable claims or causes of action, the entire case may be removed and the district court may determine all issues therein, or, in its discretion, may remand all matters in which State law predominates. 28 U.S.C. § 1441(c). While the amended third-party complaint alleges a claim involving a federal question against the Chase Defendants, the Circuits are split on whether section 1441(c) permits removal by a third-party defendant. Compare Lewis v. Windsor Door Co., 926 F.2d 729, 733 (8th Cir.1991) (‘We do not ... believe § 1441(c) was intended to effect removal of a suit, not otherwise within federal jurisdiction, because of the introduction of a third-party claim.” (internal quotations omitted)) and First Nat’l Bank of Pulaski v. Curry, 301 F.3d 456, 465 (6th Cir.2002) (<HOLDING>) with Carl Heck Eng’rs, Inc. v. Lafourche 
 Holding statements: (A) holding that review of an original removal decision and a subsequent removal order are distinct (B) holding that removal under section 1441c may only be done by the original defendant (C) holding that  1441c does not allow the remand of claims that are not separate and independent (D) recognizing that  1441c limits removal to situations in which a federal question is joined with a separate and independent claim of a nonfederal nature (E) holding that any defect in removal procedure must be cured within the 30day removal period or it is fatal to the removal and defendants failure to attach exhibits to the notice of removal within that time required remand
(B)

based on whether KSU had the authority to waive Eleventh Amendment immunity. See Ford Motor Co., 323 U.S. at 467, 65 S.Ct. 347. We easily resolve this question by examining the enabling legislation, Kan. Stat. Ann. § 76-723. Nothing in the statute itself makes entering into a contract waiving immunity an ultra vires act. Indeed the contrary is true-this legislation explicitly gives KSU, as a state educational institution, expansive, unlimited authority to contract with the DOE so that KSU may participate in student financial assistance programs. Further, unlike in other Kansas statutes, there is no provision in § 76-723 disclaiming a waiver or prohibiting consent to waive. See, e.g., Kan. Stat. Ann. § 75-6116(g) ( ement Co. (In re Estate of Fernandez), 123 F.3d 241, 244-46 (5th Cir.) (<HOLDING>), amended by 130 F.3d 1138 (5th Cir.1997); cf. 
 Holding statements: (A) holding that the alien tort statute itself is not a waiver of sovereign immunity (B) holding that the united states is liable for interest only in the event of a clear statutory waiver of sovereign immunity (C) holding that the waiver of sovereign immunity must be clear and unequivocal (D) holding attempted statutory waiver of sovereign immunity under  106a unconstitutional and listing similar cases (E) holding that section 106a mandates an automatic waiver of sovereign immunity and thereby impliedly repeals the ftcas exhaustion requirement

(D)