A leading constitutional scholar is sounding the alarm over what he describes as a troubling new trend among high-tax, Democrat-run states: if residents leave, they may still be forced to pay.
Jonathan Turley didn’t hold back during a recent appearance on Kudlow, where he blasted policies emerging from California and New York that aim to tax not just those who stay—but increasingly, those who go.
“The blue states are solving their problem with this exodus… by making taxes retroactive and trying to essentially capture people in the state,” Turley said, describing what he views as a desperate attempt to stem the tide of residents fleeing for lower-tax environments.
That exodus is no secret. In recent years, both California and New York have seen significant population losses, particularly among high-income earners and business owners. Many have relocated to states like Texas and Florida, where taxes are lower and regulations less burdensome.
But instead of adjusting policy to compete, critics say some blue-state leaders are opting for a different strategy: make leaving more expensive—or at least less appealing.
Turley’s critique turned especially sharp when describing these policies. “It’s like a deranged ex-spouse in denial,” he said. “They just say you really didn’t leave us. You’re still here. You must still want to be with us.”
Behind the colorful analogy is a serious concern. Some proposals would allow states to continue taxing former residents based on past ties or property ownership, effectively extending their reach beyond state lines. Others, like new property surcharges, target individuals who may not even live in the state full-time.
In New York, Kathy Hochul has backed a so-called “pied-à-terre” tax—an annual levy on luxury second homes in New York City valued at $5 million or more. The measure is expected to generate roughly $500 million annually, helping to close persistent budget gaps.
Supporters argue the tax simply asks the ultra-wealthy to pay their fair share. Hochul herself framed it as a matter of fairness, noting that those who can afford multimillion-dollar second homes should contribute to the city’s financial stability.
But critics see it as yet another signal that success—and mobility—are being penalized.
Turley warned that these policies may ultimately backfire. “What you’re witnessing is economic atrophy,” he said, pointing to shrinking tax bases and declining competitiveness. “Instead of creating magnets for new residents, they’re trying to trap the ones who are trying to leave.”
That strategy, he argued, ignores a basic economic reality: people and businesses go where they are treated best. States that lower taxes and reduce regulatory burdens tend to attract growth, while those that increase costs risk driving it away.
For conservatives, the lesson is clear. Rather than doubling down on taxation, states should be competing for residents—not chasing them.
As the debate continues, one thing is becoming harder to deny: in a mobile, modern economy, taxpayers have options. And if policies begin to feel more like shackles than incentives, they may not just leave—they may never come back.
