You may presume that a state law makes X or Y illegal, but a federal judge can up-end that in an instant. No law is final as long as an activist judiciary and a dictatorial executive are on the move. Get my point now?
What interest would a federal judge have in ordering a state to engage in revenue-collecting activities to enhance its own budget? Your attempted comparison with activist social issue judges is apples and oranges and moot. If anything, liberal fed politicians and judges would side with the left wing state politicians who rescinded this. Get it?