PLEASE HELP. Both pls!

A. Tennessee law held that a person mast have been a state resideot for at leas two years to have a license to be a retailer of alcobolic beverages in the state. The statute was reviewed by the Supreme Coart. It held that the statate: a. Was valid because the 21 st Ameodment to the Constitution allows states to regulate alcohol. b. was invalid as a restriction on interstate cortpetition c. was invalid as a restriction on First Amendment rights. d. was valid under the Equal Protection Clause as it applied equally to all revidents. Aboshady was convicted of participating in a scherne to cheat insurers and the government by billing for medical services not delivered. He challenged evidence used against him that was gathered from warrant that required Google to tum over a huge database to the government that incloded his personal email. The appeals court beld that: a. including personal email in a broad document sweep is not permissible. b. Aboshady could contest inclusion of individual emails that were outside the issues at iral, but that was not relevant as documents were properly filtered. c, the document request-more than 400,000 items-was a "finishing expedition" that is not permissible; there will be a new trial d. Absoshady was entrapped by false cmails sent to him by investigators: those emails must be suppresed at the new trial