Did the lower court violate Commerce Clause of the constitution of Article 1, section 8, Clause 3; when it denied principal's interest to maintain uniformity of state laws for Direct Fed Loans funded by taxpayers which impact interstate commerce and violated the intent of diversity jurisdiction?

QUESTION PRESENTED FOR REVIEW The Supremacy Clause of the United States Constitution (Article VI, Clause 2) establishes that the Constitution, federal laws made pursuant to it.constitute the supreme law of the land. It prohibits states from interfering with the federal government’s exercise of its constitutional powers, and from assuming any functions that are exclusively entrusted to the federal government. Under Ex Part Young, the dichotomous strain of law and sovereign immunity jurisprudence tempered to uphold Supremacy Clause of the Constitution as an exception. 209 U.S. 123 (1908). In Ex Part Young, the state laws were deemed unconstitutional for violating due process clause of the fourteenth amendment and dormant commerce clause. Pursuant to court of appeals authority under federal question jurisdiction for this case; the court negated federal preemption for substantive issues that constitutional rights and congress intent for federal laws enacted to protect those rights. 1) Did the lower court violate Commerce Clause of the constitution of Article 1, section 8, Clause 3; when it denied principal’s interest to maintain uniformity of state laws for Direct Fed Loans funded by taxpayers which impact interstate commerce and violated the intent of diversity jurisdiction? U.S. v. Deveaux 9 U.S. (5 Cranch) 61, 67 (1809). 2) Did the quasi-judicial court violate the fourteenth amendment of the constitution to plaintiffs property rights when denying federal preemption under judicial estoppel and denial of waiving state’s sovereign immunity under the Eleventh Amendment pursuant to collateral estoppel doctrine defense: when the initial federal proceeding as per contractual duties of the principal, United States Department of Education, Office of Civil Rights for regulatory taking plaintiffs patent property right under Title I of American Disability Act during investigation; which was tainted by perjured testimony, abusive dilatory tactics and conflict of interest that impacted the jurisdiction of this case? White v. Ragan, 324 U.S. (1945). 3) Did the district and appellant court exceeded its jurisdictional authority when it entered court orders without the presence of necessary interpleader party; United States Department of Education to this suit to which more than $200,000 of United States Department of Education Fed loan Servicing funds and federal interests as per Master of Promissory Note contract are in stake? Treines v. Sunshine Mining Co., 308 U.S. 66, 74 (1939). 4) Did the Appellant court violate plaintiff's fourteenth amendment right when it denied writ of injunction based on weighing eBay four factor test when plaintiffs patent utility right under ADA Amendment Act i iii (ADAAA) was infringed due to misrepresentation from 2009 to 2012 as a result of defendant’s pre-textual discrimination under Title VII [Asian race: a matter public interest]; and retaliatory dismissal in 2013? eBay Inc. v. MercExchange, L.L.C., 547 U.S. 388, 391 (2006). 5) Did the appellant court violate plaintiff’s fourteenth amendment right when disavowing Congress intent for ADAAA 2008 and Catchall statute of limitation for her claims, I-VI. 42 U.S.C 12101; 154 CONG. REC $8841 (daily ed. Sept. 16, 2008). 6) Did the appellant court violated constitutional rights for not abrogating state’s eleventh amendment immunity under its powers granted by section 5 of the fourteenth amendment? iv ;