Whether they should be allowed to engage in the regulation of interstate commerce for activities that occur entirely extra-state is probably more along what you intended, but even that you could probably find allowed or as-yet-indeterminate exceptions to.
This is fine. Sacramento can regulate what's coming into California. It cannot set food labeling requirements for Michigan.
It can regulated what is sold or produced in California, but, because of the Commerce Clause, it's more limited in regulating what comes in to California.
> It cannot set food labeling requirements for Michigan.
It absolutely can set food labelling requirements for food commercially produced in California, except to the extent such regulations are preempted by federal law, whether or not it will later be shipped to Michigan.
No, it banned sale of foie gras entirely (it did not single out importation), and even so the ban, to the extent that it prohibited individual consumers from buying it for import from out-of-state vendors, was struck down by a federal trial court in 2020 as a violation of the dormant commerce clause, a decision this year upheld by the Ninth Circuit, so it's probably not a law you want to point to as an example of the state being free to regulate interstate commerce.
https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2022/may/07/california-f...
> and IIRC are planning a law banning the import of foreign oil.
Even if it was true that someone in California was planning on trying to pass such a law, it would be an even more clear, bright-line dormant commerce clause violation than the foie gras law.
We all have opinions on what states can and can't do, and while I agree that precedent should prevent something like this, the fact remains that while you and I agree that they shouldn't be able to, there's nothing to stop them trying, and even perhaps succeeding (at the very least, for however many years it takes for someone to show injury and maybe get it overturned.)
Sincerely, I appreciate you.
They can even regulate interstate commerce in ways that discriminate between in and out of state companies (IE something that seems a very clear commerce clause violation), though this is historically limited mostly to alcohol shipment :)
Honestly, though, the current SC seems much more likely to strike that all down than they have in the past, and give much brighter lines.
Whether it happens as a direct consequence of the word of the law feels less relevant than the fact they made it happen in practice via a settlement.
[1]: https://table.skift.com/2018/07/12/some-fast-food-chains-dro...
It isn't allowed to discriminate against or unduly burden interstate commerce; it can generally regulate the behavior of Washington persons (including corporations) in interstate commerce where such regulation does not discriminate against such commerce (which is clearly the case where the rule is identical to that for in-state commerce of the same type.)
The exception would be if the federal government preempted the kind of regulation Washington sought to make by exercise of federal commerce powers.
