give as much detail in your explanation

The Minnesota legislature enacted a 1977 statute banning the retail sale of milk in plastic nonreturnable, nonrefillable containers but permitting such sale in other nonrefillable containers, such as paperboard milk car- tons. Clover Leaf Creamery brought suit challenging the constitutionality of the statute under the Equal Pro- tection Clause, alleging that there was no rational basis for the statute. The Minnesota legislature's purpose in passing the statute was to control solid waste, arguing that plastic containers take up more space in solid waste disposal dumps. The Minnesota Supreme Court found evidence to the contrary: the jugs took up less space and required less energy to produce. On appeal to the U.S. Supreme Court, can the statute survive a constitutional challenge? Is there a "rational basis" for the statute? What effect does the evidence to the contrary have on the statute's constitutionality? Bernard Saul was a salesperson for A. P. Walter Com- pany, a wholesale auto parts business, assigned to the D&S Auto Parts account. Mr. Saul took inventory at D&S each week and phoned in an order to Walter to cover the needed inventory replacements. Between 1976 and 1982, Mr. Saul ordered parts from Walter and invoiced D&S, but he actually kept a portion of the parts for himself, sold them to other dealers, and pocketed the money. Through an audit, D&S discovered that it had paid $155,445.20 for parts that were not received. Can Mr. Saul be charged with any crimes? Can Walter be charged with any crimes