But is it interstate commerce?
Is that the charge?
The courts have generally held that the federal government can regulate a type of activity that has sufficient ties to interstate commerece even if a particular instance does not directly involve interstate commerce.
I think that's an overreaching load of crap. Courts have no problems deciding if individuals have a right to sue based on if that individual has legal standing. They often go into intricate rulings on how the court lacks jurisdiction on something they would rather not address, and claim broad jurisdiction when the case involves something they want to address.
However, only a fool would expect that the courts would reverse such a long and consistent history of over reaching and throw out this case.
He broke federal law, and some vague political promise not to enforce the law is not binding on a federal prosecutor. Laws are binding, the rest is just talk.
It seems the way the fed acts that they want corner the market and be the dealer..