[cfqycwz]

Not a lawyer but I think this would be constitutional in the same way that international sanctions are constitutional. The regulation of interstate and foreign commerce is an enumerated power given to congress and usually interpreted pretty broadly.

[xxpor]

That's right, but a company in a state selling to a state gov isn't engaging in interstate commerce. Maybe SCOTUS will use the cockamamie "but the market is nationwide so it still affects it" excuse but normally...

[willcipriano]

Wickard v. Filburn pretty much ended the idea of any real limitations in regards to calling something interstate commerce:

"An Ohio farmer, Roscoe Filburn, was growing wheat to feed animals on his own farm. The US government had established limits on wheat production, based on the acreage owned by a farmer, to stabilize wheat prices and supplies. Filburn grew more than was permitted and so was ordered to pay a penalty. In response, he said that because his wheat was not sold, it could not be regulated as commerce, let alone 'interstate" commerce'..."

Roscoe lost.

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wickard_v._Filburn

[dragonwriter]

> Wickard v. Filburn pretty much ended limitations in regards to interstate commerce.

It did not, illustrated by among others, US v. Lopez.

https://www.oyez.org/cases/1994/93-1260

[willcipriano]

How would they claim this isn't a economic activity?

[dragonwriter]

> That's right, but a company in a state selling to a state gov isn't engaging in interstate commerce.

A company commercially gathering data that is not exclusively limited to data on in-state activities of in-state residents from (transitively) exclusively in-state sources, and selling it, is engaging in interstate commerce.

[djbebs]

If growing your own wheat for your own consumption is under the commerce clause so is every other economic activity