We suspect this is legal folly and would be a huge waste of state money. Today, we noticed that USA Today agrees with us. Here's a portion of their editorial:
Most constitutional scholars seem dubious that these suits will succeed, given the federal courts' long history of deference to Congress' authority to regulate interstate commerce, even when it comes to forcing individuals to do something they'd rather not. In a key 1942 case, for example, the Supreme Court upheld the power of the government to prohibit a farmer from growing more wheat than a national quota allowed, even though he insisted it was for his own consumption.