[dragonwriter]

> California once banned the import of foie gras into the state

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.

[bmelton]

I appreciate the clarity on my clumsy post. I knew of the added detail on the foie gras case but didn't bother making the more direct point I was trying to make is more that they _can get away with_ moreso than _they are clearly allowed to do_ these things.

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.