Barclays Bank, 512 U.S. at 311, 114 S.Ct. 2268 (citation and internal quotation marks omitted). We regard this concern as equally vivid in non-tax dormant Foreign Commerce Clause cases. See Nat’l Foreign Trade Council v. Natsios, 181 F.3d 38, 68-69 (1st Cir.1999), aff'd on other grounds sub nom. Crosby v. Nat’l Foreign Trade Council, 530 U.S. 363, 120 S.Ct. 2288, 147 L.Ed.2d 352 (2000). The market participant doctrine complicates this constitutional algorithm. The Supreme Court has held, in cases involving domestic commerce, that “if a State is acting as a market participant, rather than as a market regulator, the dormant Commerce Clause places no limitation on its activities.” S.-Cent. Timber Dev., Inc. v. Wunnicke, 467 U.S. 82, 93, 104 S.Ct. 2237, , 916 F.2d 903, 910 (3d Cir.1990) (<HOLDING>); K.S.B. Tech. Sales Corp. v. North Jersey
holding state buy american statute unconstitutional because it interfered with federal foreign affairs power emphasizing its effect on foreign commerce holding young applicable in an action to enjoin state officials from enforcing a law in violation of the commerce clause holding nlra applied to state bank of indias activities in the united states because most employees are american citizens or american residents and the labor dispute centers on the wages to be paid american residents foreign or natural  holding that the statute as applied violates the commerce clause holding market participant exception applicable to foreign commerce clause so as to shield state buy american law