Three states—East Winnetka, Midland, and West Hampton—have different rules about snipe traps. Midland bans possession and destruction of traps within its borders. A West Hampton resident travels to East Winnetka to buy a snipe trap, then is stopped in Midland with the trap. Which constitutional principle most clearly governs whether Midland’s ban is valid?

• A. Substantive due process protections for property rights
• B. Equal protection only if the law targets a suspect class
• C. Travel rights under the Constitution are implicated by the possession ban
• D. The law is rationally related to a legitimate state interest in protecting wildlife and is likely constitutional in the absence of suspect class considerations

Answer: (B)

The central idea here is how equal protection analysis applies to state laws that regulate possession of goods within a state's borders. Equal protection scrutiny depends on whether a law targets a suspect class or a fundamental right; if it does not, the law is evaluated under rational basis review. A neutral regulation that bans possession of snipe traps inside a state does not in itself pick out a protected group. Therefore, the proper framework is equal protection, but applied only in the sense that the presence of a suspect-class would change the level of scrutiny. Since there’s no suspect class involved, the law would likely be sustained under rational basis review. That’s why the option stating that equal protection applies only if the law targets a suspect class is the best way to capture the governing principle for this scenario. The other choices misfit because substantive due process isn’t about a property taking here, there isn’t a recognized travel-right claim that overrides state regulation, and the more precise dormant-commerce concerns aren’t addressed by the given options.