Where a state can provide a justification for the impairment that serves “a significant and legitimate public purpose” — and where the challenged law was “reasonably necessary” to achieve an adequate purpose — the state does not violate the Contracts Clause. United Healthcare Ins. Co. v. Davis, 602 F.3d 618, 627 (5th Cir.2010). Importantly, Jones’s argument on this issue does not relate to the circumstances of his particular termination; he traces his injury instead to the state of Louisiana’s legislative decision to reduce funds to the ULS system. That decision served the legitimate state interest of addressing the grave economic crisis triggered by the Great Recession. See Energy Reserves Grp., Inc. v. Kan. Power & Light Co., 459 U.S. 400, 411-12, 103 S.Ct. 697, 74 L.Ed.2d 569 (1983) (<HOLDING>). Jones provides no argument about how the
recognizing a public employees first amendment right to address matters of legitimate public concern recognizing that remedying  a broad and general social or economic problem qualifies as a significant and legitimate public purpose holding that the statute qualifies as an exemption 3 statute recognizing this as the general rule recognizing general rule