California’s recently proposed law forcing presidential candidates to release their tax returns in order to campaign in the state, is coming under fire as many claim that it is unconstitutional. After a case in 1995, the Supreme Court ruled that the decision add state-imposed term limits for members of Congress was unconstitutional. This ruling is held in support of the opposition as the presidential candidate qualifications clearly stated in the US Constitution are: The candidate must be at least 35, a natural-born citizen of the US, and must be a US resident for over 14 years.

Lawsuits will begin to be filed, as clearly this will affect the campaign of President Trump’s March Primary if it is not resolved with haste. It also seems that he is not alone in this endeavor, as many are claiming the law to be unconstitutional. Anthony Kennedy said the nation’s “political identity” includes the principle that “the national government is, and must be, controlled by the people without collateral interference with the states.”

However this law poses serious argument on the idea of states being able to provide their own set of qualifications for presidential candidates. But if there is a national standard for what a president should be, and it is not a power granted to a state by the US Constitution, why should it be able to add to that.

This law is clearly in the works to prevent President Trump from running his campaign in the state of California, however, with the backlash this law has received by officials, it may not have a lifespan long enough to last until the Primaries.