WILL GIVE BRAINLIEST URGENT 37.
Akbar runs an ice cream shop. His state government passed a law raising taxes on dairy products over a hundredfold, believing that dairy products were unhealthy. Akbar sued the state for arbitrary taxation. The case was being appealed to the federal courts when the state repeals the tax before collecting any money. Would the federal courts still review the case?

A) No; Akbar lacked standing to bring the case to the courts.

B) No; state laws are not challengeable in federal courts.

C) No; the case is moot since the law was repealed.

D) Yes; there’s a federal interest in preventing similar cases.

D) Yes; there’s a federal interest in preventing similar

Explanation:

Akbar definitely has standing as he is affected by the tax law. State laws are challengeable in federal courts if they affect interstate trade. There is a federal interest here as the state laws affect the interstate trade of ice cream.

However the reason the federal courts would NOT review this case is because the case is moot since the law was repealed.

The answer is C).

C

Explanation:

The answer is  

C) No; the case is moot since the law was repealed.

try c

explanation:

because health care was someone else i think

1. should those convicted of violating laws be labeled?

-yes, because they are violating other people's human rights, so why should they get their's and other's don't?

2. do you feel that this labeling would be an infringement on a person's rights?

-yes it does technically but they lose the right to be human when they rap.e people of everything they have.