where government employer “faces nothing more than the same minimum-wage and overtime, obligations that hundreds of thousands of other employers, public as well as private, have to meet”), overruling Nat’l League of Cities v. Usery, 426 U.S. 833, 96 S.Ct., 2465, 49 L.Ed.2d 245 (1976). When Congress lawfully exercises its power under the Commerce Clause, state and local governments cannot avoid complying with the resulting. regulation simply by pointing to a “sacred province of state autonomy.” Id, (quotation ojnitted); see also, e.g., Firestone Tire & Rubber Co. v. Neusser, 810 F.2d 550, 555 n. 2 (6th Cir.1987) (explaining that “[t]he traditional concept of state sovereignty is, of course, no longer the focus of this analysis”); Dressman v. Costle, 759 F.2d 548, 557 (6th Cir.1985) (<HOLDING>). Instead, states must seék relief from federal
holding that case law from other circuits squarely precluded jurisdiction over preenforcement ruling under the clean air act holding that the limitation act does not apply to claims brought under the clean water act holding that the same standards apply for setting reasonable attorneys fees under the clean air acts fee shifting provision as under 42 usc  1988 holding the epa could regulate air pollutants under the clean air act solely on the basis of the pollutants risk to human health holding that kentucky counties tenthamendment challenge to the clean air act obviously fails under garcia