Supreme Court unanimously outlined the following framework for the initial evaluation of a claim brought under the Contract Clause: Generally, we first ask whether the change in state law has “operated as a substantial impairment of a contractual relationship.” Allied Structural Steel Co. v. Spannaus, 438 U.S. 234, 244, 98 S.Ct. 2716, 57 L.Ed.2d 727 (1978); Energy Reserves Group, Inc. v. Kansas Power & Light Co., 459 U.S. 400, 411, 103 S.Ct. 697, 74 L.Ed.2d 569 (1983). This inquiry has three components: whether there is a contractual relationship, whether a change in law impairs that contractual relationship, and whether the impairment is substantial. Id. at 186, 112 S.Ct. 1105; accord Reliable Tractor, Inc. v. John Deere Constr. & Forestry Co., 376 Fed.Appx. 938, 941 (11th Cir.2010) (<HOLDING>). Federal law ultimately controls the analysis
recognizing that statements admissible under an exception to the hearsay rule may be inadmissible when tested against the confrontation clause  because confrontation clause analysis differs from hearsay rule analysis holding for purposes of contract clause analysis a statute can be said to impair a contract when it alters the reasonable expectations of the contracting parties holding confrontation clause violations subject to harmless error analysis recognizing three components of contract clause analysis set out in romein holding that a single cause of action arises out of the same set of facts