u/Large-Arugula3830

Edit: Somewhat solved! See shashakiro's reply for what is probably the most satisfactory explanation that the government will raise a Free Exercise defense. All other explanations do not explain the Free Exercise Clause standing issue.

This is the original, unchanged post:

The court will not be able to rule on a free exercise challenge in this case. Taxpayers only have standing to sue under the Establishment Clause pursuant to the tax and spend clause.

Option B states that the court will rule on the merits because it passes muster under both religious clauses. However, there is no standing to sue under the Free Exercise Clause.

If anyone has thoughts to the contrary, I would love to hear.

I understand why my answer is incorrect - I took a guess that the "lengthy set of regs" was hinting at a field preemption issue, but wasn't really convinced. But how is this a Dormant Commerce Clause issue, and what is this rule statement?

Nowhere in the question does it suggest that this regulation would burden interstate commerce at all. Even if you take that for granted, what is this test? I looked through the course companion and Chemerinsky's handout and didn't see that language anywhere.

The explanation is talking about preventing speeding, which appears nowhere in the prompt -- can someone please explain?