I'm not a constitutional law expert, but based on current precedent on money being a form of speech, this would probably fall under that. The state isn't banni

I'm not a constitutional law expert, but based on current precedent on money being a form of speech, this would probably fall under that. The state isn't banning interaction with or travel to those states, it's just saying that it won't support those states by paying for travel there. Employees can travel there if they wish by spending their own money. If it's a work related trip, California will still pay their salary during the time they are in the banned state, I believe.