> the courts have never simply ruled that only the federal government has the power to regulate commerce amongst the states The court has ruled exactly the opp

> the courts have never simply ruled that only the federal government has the power to regulate commerce amongst the states The court has ruled exactly the opposite, in fact. Rice v. Norman Williams Co. made that very clear. That case established the test of preemption of state statutes by the Sherman Act. There's nothing that prevents a state from regulating commerce, even interstate commerce provided that such regulation isn't pre-empted by Sherman or other relevant federal laws. It does seem like the states would be on very thin ice with regulating ISPs however. The Dormant Commerce Clause doctrine states that if the federal government has remained silent on a point of interstate or international commerce, states can pass laws regulating it if that law doesn't discriminate against or burden interstate commerce. However, the federal government as explicitly NOT remained silent on net neutrality. The Dormant Commerce Clause affirms that regulating interstate commerce isn't exclusively a federal power -- as long as the federal government has not remained "silent" on the regulatory area in question. I might suggest reading the following legal note since the ideas contained within are extremely relevant to the discussion: https://repository.law.umich.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1021&context=mjeal https://repository.law.umich.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article... That note deals with The Dormant Commerce Clause and California's Low Carbon Fuel Standard -- I would expect some similar arguments to appear in the event that state-enforced Net Neutrality hits the courts.