No? That would raise all the same interstate commerce issues that led the judge to block the export ban in this case.
The judge blocked this on contract, not interstate commerce grounds.
FTFA: “The legal dispute hinged on whether the coal ban violated an agreement between the city and a company developing a bulk loading terminal near the city’s port.”
> Oakland Bulk & Oversized Terminal LLC, argued the city had no substantial evidence that shipping coal through the terminal would endanger the health of workers or surrounding communities.
AndrewBissell was replying about them using taxes as a way to significantly discourage bringing coal through the Oakland port where the article is about them just attempting a regular ban which is against the contract which probably only allows the city to ban the port from moving a good if it poses a health/safety risk to the town.
Right, but he didn't just say that such an effort would raise interstate commerce issues (which would be sort of correct, although the Art. I, Sec. 8 Commerce Clause issue—what is usually referred to by interstate commerce issues—is dwarfed by the bright-line Art. I, Sec. 9 export tax/duty issue) but that it would raise “all the same interstate commerce issues that led the judge to block the export ban in this case” which is wrong (or at least meaningless) since this was a case decided on contract, not interstate commerce, grounds.