appropriate to the public purpose justifying the legislation’s adoption. Am. Fed’n of State, County & Mun. Emps. v. City of Benton, Arkansas, 513 F.3d 874, 879-880 (8th Cir.2008) (citing Energy Reserves Group, Inc., 459 U.S. 400, 412, 103 S.Ct. 697, 74 L.Ed.2d 569 (1983)). Before analyzing whether an act is reasonable and necessary, the court must determine the degree of deference afforded to the legislature. Where the state impairs a public contract to which it is a party, the state’s self-interest is at stake and, thus, the court will afford less deference to the state’s decision to alter its own contractual obligations. United Auto., Aero., Agric. Implement Workers of Am. Int’l Union v. Fortuno, 633 F.3d 37, 45 (1st Cir.2011); see also Buffalo Teachers Fed’n, 464 F.3d at 369 (<HOLDING>). “The relevant inquiry for the Court is to
holding that states likewise retain immunity from private suit in their own courts which congress may not abrogate by article i legislation holding the takings clause inapplicable to the states of its own force holding that when a states legislation is selfserving and impairs the obligations of its own contracts courts are less deferential to the states assessment of reasonableness and necessity holding that federal courts can not review a states alleged failure to adhere to its own sentencing procedures holding determination of reasonableness of pursuit requires a continuing assessment of need and risk