The federal judge specifically stated the law violated the interstate commerce clause of the Constitution - you know, the clause that is usally cited to *defend* government encroachment in almost all areas. There's a certain irony in that.

I predicted that there was no way that a law that required to to pay money to simply "exist" would stand up in court. Other provisions of the law are still in effect but this one, which would have taken effect in 2014 is history for the time being (and I predict it'll stay that way).