Opinion ID: 2463
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 3

Heading: conclusion

Text: For reasons stated above, we hold that (1) plaintiffs have established standing to sue under Article III of the Constitution; (2) plaintiffs are proper parties to allege a violation of the dormant Commerce Clause under the Supreme Court's prudential standing doctrine; (3) NYTA has not established that it acted as a market participant rather than as a governmental entity engaged in regulation of interstate commerce; (4) plaintiffs have stated a claim under the dormant Commerce Clause; (5) plaintiffs have stated a claim for infringement of their right to travel in violation of the Equal Protection Clause and the Privileges and Immunities Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment; (6) plaintiffs' dormant Commerce Clause and right to travel claims must be analyzed under the three-factor test set forth by the Supreme Court in Northwest Airlines, Inc. v. County of Kent, 510 U.S. 355, 369, 114 S.Ct. 855, 127 L.Ed.2d 183 (1994); and (7) the District Court properly dismissed Rubin's challenge to NYTA's toll policy under the Privileges and Immunities Clause of Article IV.