State restrictions

[catmanjack]

So when states/cities start to ban travel and good from other states it’s times for those politicians and states to be removed from the United States and collecting federal aide and funds.
The division continues to head towards something that will completely fracture this country.

[catmanjack]

I should have given more details, Portland is trying to restrict travel and goods from Texas because of the new abortion laws.

[dan_bgblue]

Isn't that against constitutional law on interstate commerce?

I could be way off on that idea, but I am trying to drag up old school larnin about that subject.

[Basket Case]

I dont believe they are banning travel by any citizens, they are just banning travel using city funds in a city capacity, such as going to a conference. Its a moronic bit of grandstanding to show their political displeasure. There are many instances of these and some are states not allowing travel to other states for political reasons. California has a state funded travel ban to 17 states, including Kentucky, over LGBTQIAZP+ issues.

[bigsky]

Yes. California state bureaucrats can't come to a conference in Montana using state funds. "Boo Hoo" is as gentle as I can characterize the reactions of Montanans.

[catmanjack]

There still should not be any restrictions from state to state.

[KeithKSR]

It seems like only blue states are into restrictions. Red states aren’t tossing restrictions on official travel to anti-2A blue states, or blue states with outlandish restrictions on personal freedoms.

[CitizenBBN]

Isn't that against constitutional law on interstate commerce?

I could be way off on that idea, but I am trying to drag up old school larnin about that subject.

Travel may be more gray, but I'd like to see the Portland case challenged before this SCOTUS.

The interstate commerce clause was put in the Constitution in large part due to the failures of the Articles of Confederation in that area, specifically that states were placing tariffs on each other.

I would argue that certainly restricting the purchase of goods and services from a specific state is a tariff, regardless of the motives behind implementing it. Certainly any tariff between states would be unconstitutional, as that was one of the major goals of insuring only Congress could regulate interstate commerce.

In my view even travel would be a tariff of sorts, as you are still restricting the purchase of goods and services from a state, in this case renting a convention hall or room, or whatever. But surely a restriction on actually buying from a state would be enough to be considered a tariff.

[VirginiaCat]

I think this type of restriction is much the same as states saying they can only expend State funds with in-state companies UNLESS there are no like vendors/services/expertise from in-state vendors.

In my field, we have to go through this a lot when a child is referred into our services. We are a highly specialized residential provider, but most states have residential providers, just not with our specialty....but referral sources have to jump through the hoops to get the kid appropriate care.

Also, I think states did this about 3 years ago. Remember the Bathroom law in NC that then meant companies stopped booking conventions in NC?

I think Portland would be hurt more by TX not allowing state funds to be spend in Oregon than vice versa so they may want to be careful the battles they pick.

[CitizenBBN]

I think this type of restriction is much the same as states saying they can only expend State funds with in-state companies UNLESS there are no like vendors/services/expertise from in-state vendors.

In my field, we have to go through this a lot when a child is referred into our services. We are a highly specialized residential provider, but most states have residential providers, just not with our specialty....but referral sources have to jump through the hoops to get the kid appropriate care.

Also, I think states did this about 3 years ago. Remember the Bathroom law in NC that then meant companies stopped booking conventions in NC?

I think Portland would be hurt more by TX not allowing state funds to be spend in Oregon than vice versa so they may want to be careful the battles they pick.

All very true, and I'm not sure any of it is really constitutional .

I honestly haven't read the related case law on this issue, but I would be curious to do so. I've had two classes studying constitutional law, but we barely brushed on the commerce clause as it relates to this area.

I'll also need ponder if the reversal of Quill v. North Dakota, in South Dakota v. Wayfair (and how weird is it the two states involved with North and South Dakota???) would have an impact in this situation. At least at a logical level.

[dan_bgblue]

Linkage (https://www.wsj.com/articles/portland-vs-texas-ted-wheeler-abortion-law-11631134042?mod=hp_opin_pos_3#cxrecs_s)

The High Court this spring declined to hear Texas’s challenge to a California ban on state-funded travel to states that offend its progressive values. Texas landed on the travel-ban list because it allows religious nonprofits to refuse to place foster children with same-sex couples. Justices Samuel Alito and Clarence Thomas argued in dissent that the Court should have exercised its original jurisdiction to hear the case.

Some Justices may be reluctant to intervene in an interstate political brawl. But after the Court’s abdication, California added five more states to its travel ban because they proposed legislation to forbid transgender females from competing in girls’ sports, among other things. Portland’s ban is broader in barring government commerce with any business in Texas. Texas businesses would have legal standing to sue in federal court if they lose a contract.

There will be more of these interstate commercial fights as polarization and geographic segregation by politics increase. Sooner rather than later, the High Court will have to stop this return to the Articles of Confederation.

[CitizenBBN]

SCOTUS generally likes to pick its moments. Portland banning goods and services and not just travel may be the case they are looking to take b/c it is more egregious and thus easier to hand down a decision.

But they will have to intercede at some point b/c it's going to get worse, not better.

[dan_bgblue]

Did Sleepy Wheeler get ahead of the game or did Portland change their minds? (https://www.foxnews.com/politics/portland-texas-boycott-abortion-law)