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.
--------
Question: speech." The categorical distinction is particularly difficult to apply to statutes that proscribe threats. Generally, threats involve words, or "speech." Moreover, in the R.A.V. case itself, the Court implicitly suggested that threats did not fall within its exception for statutes "directed at conduct." See R.A.V., U.S. at --, 112 S.Ct. at 2546 (describing 18 U.S.C. 871, which proscribes threats against the President, as fully subject to its general rule). Nonetheless, as I discuss below, at least one panel in this circuit has held that a civil rights statute selectively proscribing threats of force is "directed at conduct" and thus not subject to the R.A.V. general rule. Hayward, 6 F.3d at 1251 (42 U.S.C. 3631, as applied to a cross-burning incident); cf. J.H.H., 22 F.3d at 826 (<HOLDING>); but cf. United States v. Lee, 6 F.3d 1297,
Holding statements: (A) holding that interference with the right to service in a restaurant is chargeable under 18 usc 241 (B) holding that a state is not a person under 42 usc 1983 (C) holding that 18 usc 245 a statute passed on the same day as 42 usc 3631 and for similar purposes constituted a valid enactment under congress thirteenth amendment authority as applied to racially motivated interference with federallyprotected rights (D) holding that 18 usc 1919 did not implicitly repeal 18 usc 1001 (E) holding that 18 usc 241 and 42 usc 3631 fall within a separate exception to rav

Answer: holding that interference with the right to service in a restaurant is chargeable under 18 usc 241

Question: created a policy or custom under which unconstitutional practices occurred, or allowed the continuance of such a policy or custom, (4) the defendant was grossly negligent in supervising subordinates who committed the wrongful acts, or (5) the defendant exhibited deliberate indifference ... by failing to act on information indicating that unconstitutional acts'were occurring. Id. at 127 (citing Colon v. Coughlin, 58 F.3d 865, 873 (2d Cir.1995)). The Supreme Court's decision in Iqbal, 556 U.S. 662, 129 S.Ct. 1937, which found that a supervisor can be held liable only "through the official's own individual actions," id. at 676, 129 S.Ct. 1937, arguably casts doubt on the continued viability of some of the categories set forth in Hastings On Hudson and Colon. See Grullon, 720 F.3d at 139 (<HOLDING>). For the purposes of this case, however, it is
Holding statements: (A) holding the same with respect to an apartment (B) holding that no heightened showing is required (C) holding the same with respect to violations of the fifth amendment (D) recognizing that opinion work product subject to discovery upon heightened showing of compelling need (E) recognizing chat iqbal may have heightened the requirements for showing a supervisors personal involvement with respect to certain constitutional violations

Answer: holding the same with respect to an apartment

Question: on the Ohio River. In the first stage of the litigation, the Court issued an injunction requiring the defendant to remove or elevate the bridge. See Pennsylvania v. Wheeling & Belmont Bridge Co., 54 U.S. (13 How.) 518, 626-27, 14 L.Ed. 249 (1851). After this earlier ruling, Congress passed a statute establishing the bridge as a post road and requiring vessels using the Ohio to avoid interfering with the structure. A storm then destroyed the original bridge, prompting the parties to return to the Court when the bridge company sought to rebuild. Pennsylvania attempted to interpose its original injunction, claiming that Congress lacked constitutional authority to reverse the effects of that injunction through subsequent legislation. The Court disagreed and 1 F.2d 811, 818 (D.C.Cir.1974) (<HOLDING>). The Rufo Court'itself noted the distinction
Holding statements: (A) holding that called party in 227b1 means the person subscribing to the called number at the time the call is made and not the intended recipient of the call (B) holding that vulnerability to legislative alteration would seem to depend on the character of the compliance called for (C) holding that the burden is on the defendants to establish the existence of absolute legislative immunity (D) holding that its appellate jurisdiction does not extend to the adjudication of administrative or legislative issues or controversies but rather only to decisions of a judicial character (E) holding that legislative immunity does not depend on motivation for legislative action even if the motive was to impinge on plaintiffs free speech rights

Answer:
holding that called party in 227b1 means the person subscribing to the called number at the time the call is made and not the intended recipient of the call