[单项选择]What was the Supreme Court's recent decision about

Text 2
The Supreme Court’s recent decision allowing regional interstate banks has done away with one restriction in America’ s banking operation, although many others still remain. Although the ruling does not apply to very large money - center banks, it is a move in a liberalizing direction that could at last push Congress into framing a sensible legal and regulatory system that allows banks to plan their future beyond the next court case.
The restrictive laws that the courts are interpreting are mainly a legacy of the bank failures of the 1930’ s. The current high rate of bank failure--higher than at any time since the Great Depression--has made legislators afraid to remove the restrictions. While their legislative timidity is understandable, it is also mistaken. One reason so many American banks are getting into trouble is precisely that the old restrictions make it hard for them to build a domestic base large and strong enough to suppo
A. The current banking law must be interpreted by the Supreme Court to be useful to today's banks.
B. Although there are currently many bank failures, the nature of banking has not really changed that much.
C. Money center banks currently have too much power as compared with the regional banks.
D. Because current laws are not responsive to contemporary banking needs, banks have been forced to take needless and dangerous risks.

A 1973 Supreme Court decision and related Senate hearings focused Congressional criticism on the 1966 Freedom of Information Act. Its unconditional exemption of any material stamped" classified "—i, e., containing information considered relevant to national security—forced the Court to uphold non-disclosure in EPA v. Mink. Justice Potter Stewart explained that the Act provided "no means to question a decision to stamp a document ’secret’ ". Senate witnesses testified that the wording of certain articles in the Act permitted bureaucrats to discourage requests for newsworthy documents.
In response, a House committee drafted HR 12471,proposing several amendments to the Act. A provision was reworded to ensure release of documents to any applicant providing a" reasonable description" —exact titles and numbers were no longer to be mandatory. The courts were empowered to review classified documents and rule on their sta
A. Agency denial of a request for information not accompanied by the title and number of the specific document.
B. Release of law enforcement records which might have revealed the identity of an informer.
C. Delay in the release of potentially newsworthy documents.
D. Unreasonable charges for the reproduction of requested documents.