The arguments between states and the federal government

It interests me that states have filed recently to block federal authority, both in executive orders (e.g., repeal by Executive Order of DACA, which was imposed by Executive Order) and agency rule repeals. See this about net neutrality rules. It’s interesting because the more typical case is governments resisting the imposition of federal rules, not resisting their removal. It’s also contradictory to argue that government can impose rules that states must follow but that government can’t repeal or change those rules. There’s always an argument about ‘capriciousness’ in administrative decisions, but administrative law is pretty basic and agencies have, generally, to be shown to not have followed their own rules. I seriously doubt that’s the case with net neutrality, so this would be an argument that somehow this has a different meaning of ‘capricious’, one that means ‘I don’t like this change so it’s capricious.’ I don’t see that as a viable legal standard.