To reduce deer overpopulation in state forests, state blue adopted a statute allowing anyone with a valid deer hunting license from any state to hunt deer within state blue. the act also imposed a $0.25 per pound tax on each deer killed within the state. funds from the tax were earmarked to support state forest land. state red is adjacent to state blue and also has an overabundance of deer. to encourage hunting, state red does not impose a tax on deer taken from its forests. a hunter who is a resident of state red and who is licensed to hunt there earns his living by supplying wild game to several high-end restaurants in state red. while legally hunting deer within state red, the hunter inadvertently crossed the state line and killed a deer in state blue. upon hearing the hunter's shot, a state blue game warden arrived at the scene, approximated the weight of the kill, and handed the hunter a tax bill based on the approximation. the bill provided a method for challenging the approximated weight of the deer, but the hunter refused to pay any tax on his kill. he instead filed suit in federal court to enjoin collection of the state blue tax on constitutional grounds. which of the following results is most likely? a the hunter will prevail because the tax is invalid under the commerce clause. b the hunter will prevail because the tax is invalid under the interstate privileges and immunities clause of article iv, section 2.c state blue will prevail because the tax is valid under the commerce clause. d state blue will prevail because the tax is valid under the import-export clause.