My main thought here is that this seems like a terrible precedent and a dangerous path (again, divorce the ban from the hot button topic). Since they shouldn't

My main thought here is that this seems like a terrible precedent and a dangerous path (again, divorce the ban from the hot button topic). Since they shouldn't like California's apparently unprecedented policy against them, it would be commensurate for North Dakota, South Dakota, Iowa, Kansas, Oklahoma, and Texas to collectively enact a much more severe counter-ban on exports and interstate trade involving anything funded by state funds heading to California, thereby dividing the nation clean in half (but for a little interstateless section of Nebraska) and cutting off California from major sources of fuel and farming, while this whole issues gets sorted out in court. Is the ban illegal? Absolutely, but go ahead, we'll wait, this might take a few years to sort out in various courts, we are heavily restricting natural gas and oil flows in the meantime. Set a precedent against one large state attempting to strong arm other smaller states into obeying its orders. Simply stating "its only state employee travel, not that big of a deal" is not constructive to what clearly is a first step of many down a path of weakening US interstate commerce.