one thing for a private party to subject a principal to suit in a state’s courts. It is entirely another for the state or one of its municipalities to subject the principal— where the principal has not entered the state, but has instead merely entered into a contract formed entirely outside the state, under whose terms the principal’s performance also occurs entirely outside the state — to wholesale regulation. The former is permissible under the Due Process clause; the latter is impermissible under the Commerce Clause. Cf. Quill Corp., 504 U.S. at 305-313, 112 S.Ct. 1904 (discussing differing scope of and concerns animating the Due Process and Commerce Clauses). Even a de minimis regulation of extraterritorial commerce may violate the Commerce Clause. Cf. Abrams, 720 F.Supp. at 287-88 (<HOLDING>). But the regulatory requirements that New York
holding  13981 constitutional under the commerce clause holding that  16913a violates the commerce clause holding that the statute as applied violates the commerce clause holding that notice requirement for malfunctioning vehicles innocuous as it is violated the commerce clause holding rational basis as standard for commerce clause inquiries