Only cases where the Feds directly order a state or local gov to do something are considered subject to 10th Amend. rulings, because the monstrous re-interpretation of the Commerce Clause has effectively given Fedzilla power over everything else.
Note that when FDR's activist justices decided Wickard v. Filburn in Congress's favor, they wrongly ignored that Thomas Jefferson and the Supreme Court had previously clarified that Congress has no Commerce Clause authority to interfere with intrastate commerce.
“For the power given to Congress by the Constitution does not extend to the internal regulation of the commerce of a State, (that is to say of the commerce between citizen and citizen,) which remain exclusively (emphasis added) with its own legislature; but to its external commerce only, that is to say, its commerce with another State, or with foreign nations, or with the Indian tribes.” –Thomas Jefferson, Jefferson’s Opinion on the Constitutionality of a National Bank : 1791.
”State inspection laws, health laws, and laws for regulating the internal commerce of a State, and those which respect turnpike roads, ferries, &c. are not within the power granted to Congress. (emphases added)” —Gibbons v. Ogden, 1824.
“Inspection laws, quarantine laws, health laws of every description, as well as laws for regulating the internal commerce of a state (emphasis added) and those which respect turnpike roads, ferries, &c., are component parts of this mass.” —Justice Barbour, New York v. Miln, 1837.
The correct interpretation is that such "commerce clause" abuses as the War on Drugs are nothing less than the waging of war upon the several States -- for the clause is the same power to regulate commerce with foreign countries, and a similar assertion of the ability to regulate the commerce inside another country would rightly be regarded as an act of war and the attempt to impose the assertion would entail the waging of that war… this is literally, as defined by the Constitution, Treason.