[twoodfin]

This doesn’t have anything to do with the 10th Amendment (little does).

This is a straightforward declaration of Commerce Clause authority. This SCOTUS has made it clear the “Dormant Commerce Clause” is not stirring awake, so if Congress wants to preempt state regulation of interstate commerce they have to do so explicitly.

[ceejayoz]

> This doesn’t have anything to do with the 10th Amendment (little does).

Sure it does.

It's basically https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/South_Dakota_v._Dole again.

The Feds can't say "you can't regulate in a way we don't like" to the states. They can apply "reasonable conditions" along the lines of "if you do x we will take away related funding y" but the entire point of the Tenth Amendment is that states have more rights than the Feds unless otherwise stated.

Federalism as protected by the Tenth means California can require things like "may contain lead" on labels, even though some of those products may be sold outside of California.

[twoodfin]

The Feds can't say "you can't regulate in a way we don't like" to the states.

They absolutely can when it comes to interstate commerce, which by precedent has a rather broad definition under which this kind of regulation easily fits.

Dole was about using spending power to constrain vaguely related state legislative powers. Not the same thing at all.

National Pork Producers Council v. Ross is much more relevant:

https://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/22pdf/21-468_5if6.pdf

If Congress had spoken on pork labeling requirements, California would have been out of luck under the Commerce Clause. But because they hadn’t, California was free to regulate.