commerce. They point to § 306(b) which states, “The following acts unreasonably burden and discriminate against interstate commerce____”49 U.S.C. § 11501(b). Plaintiff, however, argues that although Congress did not cite § 5 of the Fourteenth Amendment as authority for enacting § 306, such a recital is not necessary if Congress had the power to act under § 5. Plaintiff contends that the type of discriminatory taxation that § 306 was designed to prohibit implicates the Equal Protection Clause. Thus, according to plaintiff, Congress had the power to enact the 4-R Act under § 5 of the Fourteenth Amendment. Plaintiff is correct that discriminatory taxes can raise equal protection concerns. See Allegheny Pittsburgh Coal v. Webster County, 488 U.S. 336, 109 S.Ct. 633, 102 L.Ed.2d 688 (1989) (<HOLDING>). Plaintiff is also correct when it asserts
recognizing that the equal protection clause proscribes discrimination against whiteanglos holding that in light of engquist the equal protection clause does not apply to a public employee asserting a violation of the clause based on a class of one theory of liability holding that west virginia property tax discriminated against coal companies in violation of equal protection clause holding that doctrine does not violate equal protection holding that lprs are entitled to the protection of the equal protection clause