we should decline to address the Commerce Clause question. Both in their memorandum in opposition and at oral argument, however, plaintiffs counter that we should address the issue because the rental of property and use and development of land substantially affect interstate commerce, citing, e.g., Groome Resources Ltd. v. Parish of Jefferson, 234 F.3d 192, 205-06 (5th Cir.2000) (upholding the constitutionality of the Fair Housing Amendments Act, and noting that “an act of discrimination that directly interferes with a commercial transaction,” such as the purchase, sale or rental of residential property, “is an act that can be regulated to facilitate economic activity”). See also Tony & Susan Alamo Found, v. Sec’y of Labor, 471 U.S. 290, 295-99, 105 S.Ct. 1958, 85 L.Ed.2d 278 (1985) (<HOLDING>). As noted in our canvass of the statute,
holding that the complaint stated a claim under the flsa where it alleged that parties were an employer and employees within meaning of act and that the defendantemployers operation constitutes an enterprise engaged in commerce  within the meaning of  the act holding that regulation of unfair labor practices in mining regulated production not commerce holding that a religious foundation is an enterprise engaged in commerce or in the production of goods for commerce within the meaning of the fair labor standards act holding claims based on the fair labor standards act subject to arbitration holding that application of fair labor standards act flsa to transportation employees employed by local government does not contravene the commerce clause because labor conditions of those employees affect interstate commerce