[mbreese]

No, I’m not conflating them. I do appreciate why they are written with geographical clauses, but I have always found it odd (and probably unenforceable).

I’m just saying that non-competes like this should be regulated under Federal authority because they explicitly cover geographic areas that include multiple states. That’s in addition to the impacts on “interstate commerce” proper (which as you said is basically all commerce).

Said another way: I find the argument that non-competes should be allowed or disallowed under the authority of only state laws to be lacking. If a contract in state A dictates what you can do in state B, it’s an interstate issue and Federal law could (should?) be involved.

[kube-system]

I think you're putting the cart before the horse. First of all, basically any company with a noncompete clause is already doing significant interstate commerce. And if a company is arguing that a neighboring state is within their area of competition, they're implying the same.

And regardless, federal power to regulate commerce hinges on actual interstate commerce taking place. A contract between two entities in one state, under the laws of that one state, that merely mentions another state, isn't interstate commerce.