Today I read that, regarding LGBT civil rights and the potty police, the 4th Reich administration will revoke some Obama rules and flip the whole thing back to the states. That's because Baby Boy DT has "always believed" that such things should be left to the states.
Oh stop! Setting aside the fact that Diaper Donny has held no beliefs about anything ever, please explain to me how this issue has anything to do with states rights. Is it in any way different in, say, Rhode Island as opposed to New Mexico? No, it is not.
"States rights" is usually bullshit, a rationale for doing nothing, for preserving prejudice and awful discrimination. The most instructive example is, of course, slavery. The non-existent "right" of South Carolina to use slave labor was no more defensible back then than the nebulous "right" of North Carolina to pass laws today about who pees where. Is murder or theft or assault or fraud permissible some states but illegal in others? Nope. No "states rights" when it comes to those things.
Now, I'll acknowledge that states rights/home rule has some legitimate application. Local taxation leaps to mind. As does state/local legislation which treats federal law as the minimum requirement, then ups the ante. Some state minimum wage and state EPA regs are good examples. There are doubtless many others.
But usually, when some politician cites states rights as a rationalization, you may be assured of two things:
1. Said politician is a conservative Republican, and 2. Said politician wants to screw somebody over.