Discussion Chance and Sanders challenge the video lottery operator license residency requirement on the basis that it violates the Commerce Clause, the Equal Protection Clause, and the Privileges and Immunities Clause of the United States Constitution. These issues will be addressed in that order. I. Commerce Clause. The Commerce Clause reserves to Congress the power to “regulate Commerce ... among the several States.” U.S. Const, art. I, § 8, cl. 3. The state argues that the residency requirement is not subject to Commerce Clause scrutiny because the state is acting as a market participant. The market participant exception has been recognized by the United States Supreme Court in three instances: Hughes v. Alexandria Scrap Corp., 426 U.S. 794, 96 S.Ct. 2488, 49 L.Ed.2d 220 (1976), (<HOLDING>); Reeves, Inc. v. Stake, 447 U.S. 429, 100
holding that a plan participant may have article iii standing to obtain injunctive relief related to erisas disclosure and fiduciary duty requirements without a showing of individual harm to the participant holding a car was broken into or entered when defendant reached in through the open window of a car holding that the city of boston was acting as a market participant when it contracted for public works construction holding that the state of maryland was a participant in the market of purchasing junk car hulks through a bounty system holding in response to a commerce clause challenge that a city that operated an airport was acting as a participant in the market for airport rental car services