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. You should write an incorrect option. Even though there exist multiple wrong answers, we only need a single wrong answer. There is a <HOLDING> token in the position of the citing text prompt where the holding statement was extracted.

Input: Consider Input: interests that a lawful permanent resident or even an illegal entrant residing more than two weeks may have developed.... Diaz Rodriguez has not shown that he has been lawfully admitted, so the due process rights of a lawfully admitted citizen are not implicated here.”). Accordingly, Petitioner has no constitutional due process rights in relation to her admission beyond that authorized by Congress. The restricted habeas review provisions set forth in Section 1252 adequately protect Petitioner’s rights because she has a meaningful review of the cause for her exclusion and of the Executive’s power to exclude her. The writ therefore has not been suspended and the Court lacks jurisdiction to review Petitioner’s claims. See Garcia de Rincon, 539 F.3d at 1140-41; Lorenzo, 508 F.3d at 1281 (<HOLDING>); Vaupel, 244 Fed.Appx. at 895 (holding that 
 Holding statements: (A) holding that section 1252e2 clearly does not permit court to review whether expedited removal statute applies in first place (B) holding that court of appeals lacked jurisdiction to review aliens habeas claims seeking review of expedited removal order including whether expedited removal statute was lawfully applied to alien and whether expedited removal procedures violated his right to due process because language of section 1252e5 clearly precludes review in habeas proceedings of whether alien is actually inadmissible or entitled to any relief from removal (C) holding that strict limitations set forth in section 1252e preclude judicial review of any constitutional or statutory claims related to the underlying expedited removal order (D) holding that  1252a2a barred review of petitioners claims including asapplied due process challenges to expedited removal order (E) holding prior to enactment of section 1326d that a person charged with illegal reentry has a constitutional right to collaterally attack the underlying removal order when a due process violation in a removal proceeding amounts to a complete deprivation of judicial review

Output: holding that section 1252e2 clearly does not permit court to review whether expedited removal statute applies in first place


Input: Consider Input: the necessity for government to be able to take private property for governmental purposes, see The Federalist No. 10 (James Madison), that power could be exercised only by making the private property owner whole. Thus the distinction plaintiffs attempt to draw is unavailing. Analytically, whether common law-based tort and contract law is subject to statutes of limitations, with or without sovereign immunity in the case of suits against the government, is unrelated to the question of whether constitutionally based takings claims may be made subject to such statutes. Which leads to the question of the applicable law. This court hears a goodly number of takings cases. In some the plaintiff property owner prevails. See, e.g., Ciéne-ga Gardens v. United States, 331 F.3d 1319 (Fed.Cir.2003) (<HOLDING>); Palm Beach Isles Assocs. v. United States, 
 Holding statements: (A) holding that unenforced tobacco regulations did not constitute a taking of vending machine owners contracts (B) holding that island owners had rights to the thread of the channel (C) holding housing statutes create no rights in tenants for purposes of section 1983 (D) holding that a cause of action for an unconstitutional taking accrues at the time the taking occurs (E) holding that statutory abrogation of lowincome housing owners contract rights was a taking

Output: holding that unenforced tobacco regulations did not constitute a taking of vending machine owners contracts


Input: Consider Input: Alabama, 843 F.Supp. 1427, 1434 (M.D.Ala.1994) (a statute affecting not only the insurance industry, but also other non-insured health care plans and agreements failed the common sense test). The Court finds that the Any Willing Provider Statute fails the common sense test because it is not specifically directed towards the insurance industry, but, rather, it expressly applies to entities outside the insurance industry, such as employers and Taft-Hartley trusts. See La.Rev.Stat.Ann. § 40:2202(3)(a)-(b) (West 1987); Hayden, 843 F.Supp. at 1434 (“[although [the statute at issue there] may have a substantial effect on the insurance industry, the law affects other health care plans and agreements even though they are not a part of an insurance contract”); cf. Stuart Circle, 995 F.2d at 504 (<HOLDING>). Because Louisiana’s Any Willing Provider 
 Holding statements: (A) holding analytically analogous statute failed the commonsense view where although the statute may have a substantial effect on the insurance industry the law affects other healthcare plans and agreements even though they are not part of an insurance agreement (B) holding that a probate courts jurisdiction is limited to that expressly conferred or which is necessarily implied from those expressly conferred (C) holding that section 624155 is not a statute which regulates the insurance industry because the statute does not meet the three prong test enunciated in union labor life ins co v pireno 458 us 119 129 102 sct 3002 73 led2d 647 1982 in so holding the court reasoned that although section 624155 is directed toward the insurance industry and applies only to the insurance industry the statute transfers or spreads no policyholder risk and the statute is not an integral part of the policy relationship between the insurer and the insured see also american intl group inc v siemens bldg techs inc 881 so2d 7 12 fladistctapp2004 holding that section 624155 is not a law  regulating insurance to which mccarranferguson might apply citing anschultz 850 f2d 1467 (D) holding that a federal statute 12 usc  92 which expressly permits national banks to sell insurance in small towns is a statute which specifically relates to the business of insurance and preempts a state statute which prohibits banks from selling insurance (E) holding that virginias statute was expressly limited to entities within the insurance industry


Output: holding analytically analogous statute failed the commonsense view where although the statute may have a substantial effect on the insurance industry the law affects other healthcare plans and agreements even though they are not part of an insurance agreement