> Wouldn’t this qualify under the dormant clause if it protected firms in Washington state by making it uneconomical for recruiting firms from elsewhere in the country to enter the Washington labour market?
The upthread claim is that it globally binds Washington entities, not that it globally binds foreign entities doing business in Washington. If it did the latter, and the practical impact was as described, it might be considered an undue burden. It might not. Its a lot easier to find cases finding substantial but non-discriminatory burdens on interstate commerce not to be violations of than to find ones holding them in violation of the dormant commerce clause, and this clearly isn't a discriminatory burden in the sense that it would place restrictions on out-of-state actors that are not placed on Washington-based actors.
> This would kind of be like the Exxon case, but if Maryland had tried to prevent Exxon from having gas stations ANYWHERE in the US if they started doing business in Maryland.
I think that’s a wildly invalid analogy, and, in any case, what you want in an analogy to make your case is an analogy to a case where the courts found a dormant commerce clause violation, not a analogy to a hypothetical variant of one where they did not where you conjecture that they might have ruled differently.
