Task: Wrong Candidate Generation
Input (English): is a careless afterthought of the appellant and amici. The conclusion that section 6 of the Fourteenth Amendment does not embrace congressional enforcement of the copyright and Lanham acts is consistent with the trend of post -Seminole decisions. Thus far, only federal statutes that enforce the Equal Protection Clause have been held to permit suits against unconsenting states. See, e.g., Crawford v. Davis, 109 F.3d 1281 (8th Cir.1997) (Title IX); Timmer v. Michigan Dept. of Commerce, 104 F.3d 833 (6th Cir.1997) (Equal Pay Act). Statutes that enforce the Commerce and Bankruptcy Clauses, on the other hand, have not been found to represent exercises of Congress’s Fourteenth Amendment remedial power. See In re Creative Goldsmiths of Washington, D.C., Inc., 119 F.3d 1140 (4th Cir.1997) (<HOLDING>); Mills v. Maine, 118 F.3d 37 (1st Cir.1997) 
 Holding statements: (A) recognizing that corporations are persons within the meaning of the fourteenth amendment (B) holding that the flsa is not within the purview of section 5 of the fourteenth amendment (C) holding that the fourteenth amendment only applies to state action (D) holding that fourteenth amendment only applies to state action (E) holding that bankruptcy jurisdiction is not within section 5 of the fourteenth amendment
Output (English): holding that the flsa is not within the purview of section 5 of the fourteenth amendment