In 1997, a landmark federal case determined that the federal government cannot force state and local governments to enforce federal laws. The U.S. Supreme Court’s decision from 1997 in Printz v. United States reaffirmed states’ rights and the constitution’s anti-commandeering provisions.

The federal Brady Gun Bill’s requirement for local sheriffs to perform gun background checks conflicted with the concept of ‘anti-commandeering’.

The 10th Amendment says that, “The powers not delegated to the United States by the constitution, nor prohibited by it to the states, are reserved to the states respectively, or to the people.”

In 1932, U.S. Supreme Court Justice Louis Brandeis wrote “It is one of the happy incidents of the federal system that a single courageous state may, if its citizens choose, serve as a laboratory; and try novel social and economic experiments without risk to the rest of the country.”

USA states are supposed to be independent and sovereign.

Do the same rules apply state to state? Are Missouri residents subject to the laws of another state?

Can one state create new laws and impose them on the residents of other states?

That is exactly what the state of New York is trying to do. “Its new greenhouse gas reporting rule requires “fuel suppliers” throughout the nation to register with New York and report information related to greenhouse gas emissions. But the rule doesn’t just concern companies doing business in the Empire State. New York has made clear that its new regulation applies to any ethanol and biodiesel producers whose product may, after being blended or sold by others, eventually end up in New York. In short, New York expects out-of-state producers and distributors to comply with its civil and criminal rules, even if the connection to the state is extremely remote or hypothetical.” (Fox News)

Missouri Attorney General Catherine L. Hanaway has joined Iowa in an attempt to stop New York. Hanaway posted on X; “We’re suing New York to stop its radical climate overreach from invading Missouri and harming our farmers. The Supreme Court has long recognized that one state cannot govern the citizens of another.”

According to the lawsuit, the New York rule ‘requires Missouri and Iowa fuel suppliers to register with and report to New York the amount of liquid fuel that could be sold in New York, irrespective of where the initial sale or production occurs.’ The rule also requires ethanol and biodiesel producers to agree to allow New York regulators to perform site inspections in Missouri and Iowa with no notice and no warrant.

Hanaway said: “If every state had the right to regulate all others, the result would not be federalism: It would be chaos. Imagine if Iowa sought to regulate how financial institutions operate in New York to counter downstream effects in Iowa, and Missouri sought to regulate technology companies in California for similar reasons. It is an unconstitutional attempt to regulate businesses, consumers and individuals beyond [New York’s] borders.”

California and Massachusetts already effectively regulate how hog farmers around the country operate. The trend needs to be stopped.

Economic war between our states costs consumers and taxpayers a lot. Recent examples include the Kansas vs Missouri subsidy war to bribe the Chiefs and Royals for their new stadium locations and the Wayfair law that forces some Missouri sellers to collect out-of -state sales tax and send it to the other 49 individual state revenue departments.

I hope AG Hanaway is successful. What a nightmare this would create for businesses, state and local governments, if another state is allowed to impose laws within our borders and send inspectors to check for compliance!

This lawsuit could be as important as the 1997 Printz vs USA anti-commandeering law.