Right. Thank you very much. I think it's an excellent question.
In Bedford, as I mentioned, one of the reasons the court was led to conclude that the former legislative scheme was unconstitutional and was grossly disproportionate was that the purpose was public nuisance when weighed against the effect. What we see with the new bill is an attempt to try to turn up the volume on the preamble, turn up the purpose, and make it more important and elevated so that the government can eventually argue that the effects are not so grossly disproportionate that they cannot be rationally supported.
So I would say there is still an argument to be made that, even though the government has changed the legislative purpose in the preamble, the same effects that led the court to strike down the old piece of legislation are very much still in play. I would argue that while the gross disproportionality analysis is now going to be a bit more challenging for those who are trying to strike down the legislation, there is also now a strong claim that can be made about arbitrariness—that when you look at the purpose and you weigh it against how the legislation will actually work in practice, it seems arbitrary.