to that effect. Plaintiffs contend that after the Board’s August 2007 rule-making, the Board decided that such contracts were unlawful and began investigations into merchandise companies and prosecutions of funeral directors. (Id.). They argue that under the Board’s new interpretation of the FDL, Plaintiffs may no longer retain 30% of the contract price, agreements may be subject to rescission, and they face a threat of potential prosecution. (Id.). Furthermore, Plaintiffs claim that “change in law” includes any “exercise of legislative power delegated by the legislature ... having all the force of law.” (Id. at 195 (Transp. Workers Union, Local 290 v. SEPTA 1996 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 10608, at *9 (E.D.Pa.1996); Ross v. Oregon, 227 U.S. 150, 162-63, 33 S.Ct. 220, 57 L.Ed. 458 (1913) (<HOLDING>))). Under the second step, Plaintiffs argue
holding that the contact clause reaches every form in which the legislative power of a state is exerted whether it be a constitution a constitutional amendment an enactment of the legislature a bylaw or ordinance of a municipal corporation or a regulation or order of some other instrumentality of the state exercising delegated legislative authority holding that crime definition and penalty powers are essential legislative functions that cannot constitutionally be delegated by the utah legislature to any other person or body holding that illegal state regulation can be accomplished either by an award of damages or by legislative enactment holding that it is the legislative authority of the union that must  make an act a crime holding that legislative consent to suit must be by clear and unambiguous language in either a statute or by other express legislative permission