This is quite literally going to lead to a Supreme Court case about Federal Preemption. Bondi will challenge some CA law, they will lose and appeal until they get to the Supreme Court. I don't have any grace to give people at this point, you have to be willingly turning a blind eye if you do not see where this will end up.

▲

dmix 2 days ago | parent [-]

Federal preemption requires federal law (aka laws written by congress). How else would it get to the supreme court?

The EO mentions congress passing new law a few times in addition to an executive task force to look into challenging state laws based on constitutional violations or federal statues. That's the only way they'd get in front of a judge.

If the plan is for the executive to invent new laws it's not mapped out in this EO

▲

treetalker a day ago | parent [-]

> Federal preemption requires federal law (aka laws written by congress). How else would it get to the supreme court?

1. No federal preemption currently. (No federal law, therefore no regulation on the matter that should preempt.)

2. State passes and enforces law regarding AI.

3. Trump directs Bondi to challenge the state law on nonsense grounds.

4. In the lawsuit, the state points out that there is no federal preemption; oh yeah, 10th Amendment; and that the administration's argument is nonsense.

5. The judge, say Eileen Cannon, invalidates the state law.

6. Circuit Court reverses.

7. Administration seeks and immediately gets a grant of certiorari — and the preemption matter is in the Supreme Court.

> passing new law … only way they'd get it in front of a judge.

The EO directs Bondi to investigate whether, and argue that, existing executive regulations (presumably on other topics) preempt state legislation.

Regardless, the EO makes it a priority to find and take advantage of some way to challenge and possibly invalidate state laws on the subject. This is a new take on preemption: creation of a state-law vacuum on the subject, through scorched-earth litigation (how Trumpian!), despite an utter absence of federal legislation on the matter.

	▲	krapp a day ago \| parent [-]
		>2. Trump preemptively threatens to withhold all Federal funding to any state that intends to pass any laws he doesn't like. >2.5 If it's a blue state, maybe the National Guard and ICE suddenly show up in force for the people's own protection. >3. States choose entirely of their own volition to comply in advance. That's probably how this is really going to go.