Five years ago, State X bought Railroad (RR), which was in bankruptcy and about to be liquidated. RR has always been the largest rail carrier in State X, presently carrying 70% of its rail freight. RR's transport rates are generally lower than other rail carriers. In signing the Act authorizing the purchase of RR, the governor stated that it would ensure continued freight rail service for State X industry.

The Act authorizing the purchase of RR provides that manufacturers with factories in State X shall have first choice of space on RR.

Peter, a citizen of State Y, which borders State X, grows melons in State Y for sale to grocers there and in State X. Before its purchase by State X, Peter exclusively used RR for shipping melons to his many State X customers. Peter has lost nearly all of his State X customers over the last 5 years because he cannot guarantee timely delivery of ripe melons because shipping space on RR is so uncertain.

Corporation manufactures refrigerators in State Y and sells them there and in other states, including State X. Corporation has lost retail customers in State X because it can no longer guarantee dates of delivery when using RR.

Peter and Corporation have repeatedly been forced to give up reserved space on RR because it is being used by State X manufacturers. They have now filed suit in Federal Court in State X.

What claims can Peter make under the United States Constitution and how should the court rule? Discuss.

Please provide the answer in an IRAC Forma, such as (Issue/ Rules/ Analysis/ Conclusion).

Answer rating: 100% (QA)

Issue The issue in this case is whether Peter a melon grower from State Y and Corporation a refrigerator manufacturer from State Y have valid claims u... View the full answer