1. Whether the market participant exception to
state action immunity should be adopted under
the facts of this case, specifically where the
municipality is the sole market participant .

2. Whether the underlying opinion of the
Fourth Circuit Court of Appeals erodes the
clear articulation test and parker immunity
jurisprudence as developed by this Court

3. Whether this Court should clarify that, when a
municipality uses legislative power to exclude
rivals while it provides the challenged service
as a commercial provider, the clear-articulation
requirement must be applied with heightened
rigor to prevent "simple permission to participate"
from being converted into authorization to
monopolize.

Whether the market participant exception to state action immunity should be adopted and whether municipalities using legislative power to exclude commercial rivals must satisfy a heightened clear-articulation test under Parker immunity doctrine