Answer:
No, because the reasons for application of the law to the man do not appear compelling.
Step-by-step explanation:
In the scenario, it can be said the law may be unconstitutional in the way it was applied to the man. This has to do with equal protection issue. However, under the Equal Protection Clause, classification of states on the basis of alienage must be scrutinized strictly and hence must be of real compelling interest for it to be considered constitutional. In the case in question, there have been no compelling reasons to make it constitutional.