State statute requiring B type truck hitch for trailers on highways

Tanya Trucker and Confusion

Tanya Trucker and the State of Confusion

In the State of Confusion, trucks that travel through must use a B-type hitch on all trucks and towing trailers, however, Tanya Trucker, who lives in another state, Denial, but must have her trucks travel through Confusion, does not like the added expense the B-type hitch law requires. She wants to take the State of Confusion to court and challenge the law, especially since the federal government has made no such regulations involving the hitches on trucks. She feels that the extra regulation imposed by the State of Confusion is an undue burden on her business and wants the courts to stop Confusion from enforcing this law. There are many issues involved in this case, such as, the relationship between states and the federal government, which court will hear the case, is the regulation even Constitutional.

Since Tanya Trucker's business is in Denial, a different state than Confusion, in this particular case interstate commerce is being effected. Since there are two different states involved in the case, a trucking company in Denial, and the State of Confusion, this case may be taken to federal court. Federal courts have jurisdiction over cases which involve interstate commerce, or trade and commerce between states. Confusion's B-type hitch law can be argued to interfere with commerce between states, as Tanya Trucker is an example. She lives in one state, while her business requires her to travel through both her state and at least one other, Confusion. Also the statute requiring B-type hitches within the state of Confusion, must be determined whether or not it is Constitutional. Only federal courts have the jurisdiction to decide whether or not a law is Constitutional.

The federal courts will have jurisdiction over the case brought by Tanya Trucker against the State of Confusion because it involves trade between states and it needs to be determined whether or not the statute is Constitutional. According to Article I Section 8 Clause 3 of the U.S. Constitution, Congress has the power "to regulate Commerce with Foreign Nations, and among the several States…" (Constitution) Also when one takes into account the Supremacy Clause of the Constitution, or Article VI, Clause 2, which asserts that "federal law, treaties, and the Constitution itself as the supreme law of the Land," (Carroll, 2011) This means that it is only the U.S. federal courts that can decide whether or not a law is acceptable in light of the U.S. Constitution. If Tanya Trucker claims that the State of Confusion's law is unconstitutional, then only federal courts can make that decision.

Tanya Trucker's claim that the state of Confusion's B-type truck hitch requirement has a great deal of merit and will most likely succeed in court. Since the federal government has made no attempt to regulate what kind of hitches are necessary on the highways of America, the State of Confusion is overstepping it's authority by imposing this regulation. When taking into account the fact that the only manufacturer of these B-type hitches resides inside Confusion, then it may be assumed that the State of Confusion is interfering in the commerce between states. While the state does have a duty to protect the interests of the residents and the roads within the state, they do not have the right to impose unnecessary regulations which interfere with a company's right to conduct business. Truckers who are made to stop and change hitches are being made to perform actions that are not necessary for the protection of the roads, or the safety of the residents.

There is a distinct set of stages which must be followed when entering the U.S. legal system. First of all a civil lawsuit must be initiated when the plaintiff files a complaint with the court against the defendant alleging that the defendant has committed a wrongdoing in a way that is recognized by the law. (Radcliffe) In this case the defendant would be the State of Confusion, because it has enacted a regulation which is harming the plaintiff, Tanya Trucker. The defendant has the right to file a response to the allegations, or the defendant could file a counter-claim against the plaintiff. In this case the State of Confusion could argue that it has the right to enact the regulation for the safety and security of the residents of the state.