statute that is substantially the same as those challenged here: Virginia’s qualifying statute serves the legitimate state interest of ensuring that Virginia has a source of recovery for future smoking-related healthcare costs attributable to tobacco manufacturers who have not subscribed to the Master Settlement Agreement and who, therefore, are not already compensating the Commonwealth for these healthcare costs. Thus, the putative local benefits are both legitimate and important. Star Scientific, 278 F.3d at 357. Moreover, appellants have failed to even allege that there is a “qualitatively or quantita-different” burden on interstate commerce than on intrastate commerce, Nat’l Elec. Mfrs. Ass’n v. Sorrell, 272 F.3d 104, 109 (2d Cir.2001); see also Freedom Holdings I, 357 F.3d at 219 (<HOLDING>), or that the Escrow Statutes have a “disparate
holding that congress may regulate purely local intrastate activities if they are part of an economic class of activities that have a substantial effect on interstate commerce holding that the proper test for balancing national security interests with a persons due process rights is the mathews balancing test holding under the pike balancing test that contraband statutes do not impose unequal burdens on interstate and intrastate commerce recognizing that congress had the power to regulate boxcars that traveled exclusively intrastate because of their inherent mobility and connection to interstate commerce it is no objection to such an exertion of commerce clause power that the dangers intended to be avoided arise in whole or in part out of matters connected with intrastate commerce holding that the government can satisfy the hobbs act interstate commerce requirement by showing that the robbery resulted in the closure of a business engaged in interstate commerce