NY Right-to-Repair Court Fight Seen Possible on Interstate Commerce Grounds

action, said a lawyer familiar with the legislation. “There’s nothing in the constitution that says states can’t regulate interstate commerce,” said the lawyer on background. “It just gives that authority to the Congress and by implication, states are not allowed to go outside of their boundaries” by impairing or creating an undue burden on interstate commerce, said the lawyer. The New York bill was written carefully to say that it applies only to products or equipment sold in New York or to repair providers that operate in New York, said the attorney. But there's already talk among right-to-repair advocates about the wider-ranging interstate commerce implications of the New York law, including those who say nothing would stop a consumer or independent repair shop from buying the parts from a New York entity and having them shipped to California (see 2206060031). Other advocates have cautioned that a legal challenge to the law is a virtual certainty. CTA, then doing business as the Consumer Electronics Association, went to court in 2009, seeking an injunction against New York City’s e-waste law on grounds it illegally exceeded the authority of the city to regulate interstate commerce by violating the Dormant Commerce Clause doctrine of constitutional law (see 0907280100). The complaint argued the program violated the doctrine by imposing burdens on interstate commerce that far outweighed the local benefits to city residents. The suit was withdrawn about two years later when New York enacted a statewide e-waste law that superseded the door-to-door collections require in the city law. CTA didn’t respond to queries seeking comment on its ambitions to challenge New York’s right-to-repair law in the courts.