[dsl]

The Commerce Clause grants powers to Congress, it does not limit the powers of states.

If someone uses Square to accept a payment or receive the benefit of a payment within the state, they can regulate it. If Square disagrees or believes the law is unjust, they can cease business in the state, or file a lawsuit against the state.

[tptacek]

I don't think that's true; if you Google "dormant commerce clause", you'll see why. State laws restricting interstate commerce have to have a legitimate interest for that particular state and their interference with interstate commerce has to be outweighed by their benefit.

[dsl]

My point still stands that its up to the state to make the determination, not you or I. Obviously they feel that Square is doing something that they can regulate.

[DenisM]

It's not up to the state. Supreme cour often overrides state laws on the grounds that they interfere with interstate commerce.

Also, the "not you or I" part was unnecessary.

[anigbrowl]

Not really. See Gonzales v. Raich for an exegesis of commerce clause jurisprudence. This is one of those cases where I think Justice Thomas' argument is correct, but that would require overturning Wickard v. Filburn, a landmark case. These cases aren't about banking specifically, more about the reach of the federal government.