> States are divested of the power to regulate interstate commerce. This is squarely jurisdiction of federal government, not the states. It's not as simple as

> States are divested of the power to regulate interstate commerce. This is squarely jurisdiction of federal government, not the states. It's not as simple as that. States can indeed apply their laws to interstate commerce in a myriad of ways, but not to the degree that the U.S. federal government can. States for example can force e-commerce companies to apply sales tax to purchases made by customers based in the given state, even though the business is based in another state. By your logic, the state should only be able to enforce their laws on the resident customer, but that's not true, they can apply their law to the online retailer who doesn't have a presence in the state and force them to collect the taxes on the state's behalf and remit the taxes to the state. [0] As a second example, a state's minimum wage laws apply to any person who resides within the state, even if that person works remotely for a company based solely in another state. If you have a company in Illinois, your minimum wage is $12.00 per hour. If you employ a person who resides in California for remote work, you still must pay them the California minimum wage of $14.00 per hour. You must also adhere to other labor laws for the employee who resides in California for overtime, maximum hours worked per day, and others. [1] > We simply disagree here. I see that they are purchasing IP within their state lines, you see something completely different. We do disagree, but your opinion also disagrees with one-hundred years of U.S. employment case law, and so I would argue is factually incorrect. [0] https://www.taxjar.com/sales-tax/nexus https://www.taxjar.com/sales-tax/nexus [1] https://www.dol.gov/agencies/whd/minimum-wage/state#ca https://www.dol.gov/agencies/whd/minimum-wage/state#ca