Wickard v. Filburn basically destroyed the commerce clause. Growing wheat on your own farm is "interstate commerce" because it impacts national wheat prices (since you would have bought that wheat otherwise!). In the second half of the 20th century, this ruling was used to great effect to limit the power of in-state businesses in the South to discriminate.
On the other hand, it was also used to justify why the federal government can prevent states from legalizing marijuana, even if it won't leave the state. It's certainly a ruling with a complicated moral legacy, in that it has some clearly good use cases, a few bad ones, while also brazenly defying the clear meaning of the constitution because doing so was convenient to the state.
Not sure how I feel about it, but I guess it was inevitable anyway.
You know, I think I’d be fine with non-competes that only apply to jobs with employers in the same state, and to jobs with an employer that does no business outside the state.
That’d effectively be a blanket ban anyway, so sure.
On the other hand, it was also used to justify why the federal government can prevent states from legalizing marijuana, even if it won't leave the state. It's certainly a ruling with a complicated moral legacy, in that it has some clearly good use cases, a few bad ones, while also brazenly defying the clear meaning of the constitution because doing so was convenient to the state.
Not sure how I feel about it, but I guess it was inevitable anyway.