Hacker News Reader

Comment by codezero | Hacker News Reader

I wonder if this has real case law behind it. I’m not a lawyer but have done a bunch of HIPAA training and one of the key elements of that federal program is that where states are more restrictive with privacy and security, this takes precedence.

More restrictive emissions laws are to protect individuals and task corporations to be better, so it seems good to let states enact their own more restrictive rules.

View on HN

Interstate commerce belongs to congress (Not the president!). Congress has allowed California to ban registration of cars that do not meet their emissions standards (other states are allows to take California's standards, but are not allowed to make their own). California can constitutionally create their own standards for cars made or sold in California, but because they are part of the US they have to register a car you bought in any other state which means their standards hurt local dealers.

Note that there has always been an exception to the rules: if you are out of state and your car it totaled you can buy a new non-California car and register it in California.

That’s the idea behind Federal vs. State government. The States are suppose to be able to regulate how they see fit as long as it meets the federal minimum. So yes, I think the same would apply to this scenario.

There is an example I am aware of that was in my history book (but that I am having trouble finding now). States would set conflicting sizes for tractor trailer mudflaps in what seemed to be a de facto attempt to regulate trade between states. This was found to be a violation of the interstate commerce clause.

The actions California takes may be considered similar, especially (as someone below mentioned) if previously acceptable cars are not grandfathered in. There is also probably a good case to be made if California law has an effect, intended or not, on non-Californian states.

There is also a federal rule (good faith and something) that states must, in general, recognize the licenses of other states (marriage, drivers, etc; but notably not concealed carry, which I think will be tested again).

Personally, on the one hand I am for states rights and the environment and very much do not like how the interstate commerce clause is used. On the other, a lack of agreeable regulation is detrimental to the states (and having one state force that regulation does not seem fair).

Oh cool! That’s an interesting point. Of course things are always more nuanced than they seem on the surface, thanks for sharing this.

See also https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Full_Faith_and_Credit_Clause and look at my other comment in the parent's chain.

Since it's about commerce, can California allow the purchase and sale of the less stringent vehicles but only allow vehicles/engines to operate on its roads that meet the higher standards?

No, that is "more against" the application of the interstate commerce clause than the logic I outlined above as it de facto is a prohibition on travel and interstate commerce. This is also explicitly covered by the full faith and credit clause (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Full_Faith_and_Credit_Clause, the thing I couldn't remember). It follows that states must recognize each other's vehicle registration, driver's licenses, and marriage licenses. It also sees use in chasing people across state lines for bogus tickets and for removing people's rights via protection orders. It lends itself to contradictory outcomes because it essentially says "all states are right."

If you were to instead ask "can you sell a vehicle that can't be registered" the answer is "yes." You can also make your own car and in so doing ignore most safety and emissions requirements.

There is a notable lack of small car manufacturers and a lack of case law on some of this. Some do mostly cosmetic work on existing models, and some sell "kits" and may help you assemble it "yourself" so as to qualify for a shopbuilt title.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com