State statute requiring B-type truck hitch on towing trailers

Business Law

The federal district court for the district in which the State of Confusion resides will have jurisdiction over the constitutionality of the B-Hitch Statute. The lawsuit by Tanya Trucker will be heard in federal court because the federal courts have jurisdiction over issues of federal questions. This suit concerns a matter for the federal courts because the issue is "whether a state statute which interferes with commerce in the manner enacted by the State of Confusion is constitutionally valid under the doctrine of the commerce clause." Since the issue cannot be resolved without the provisions of the United States Constitution, it is a matter of federal law. The appropriate controlling provision is the commerce clause which is found in Article 1 section 8 clause 3 of the United States Constitution. It reads as follows: "The Congress shall have Power to…To regulate commerce with foreign nations, and among the several States, and with the Indian Tribes." U.S. Const. art. I, § 8, cl.3.

In the first instance Tanya Trucker must identify the appropriate court in which to file a pleading. Pursuant to Rule 3 of the Federal Rules of Procedure, "a civil action is commenced by filing a complaint with the court." The complaint needs to have a cause of action; in other words, why is Tanya Trucker suing the State of Confusion. Because of this, Tanya Trucker needs to hire an attorney to write a complaint alleging that the State of Confusion's statute regarding B-Hitches is unconstitutional because it discriminates against out of state truckers. Once the complaint is filed the State of Confusion will receive a copy along with a summons as pursuant to Rule 4 of the F.R.C.P. This summons will require the State of Confusion's legal representative to be present in court along with any motions that they may want to make. At this point the State of Confusion would ordinarily be able to make a motion to dismiss if Tanya Trucker filed the complaint in the wrong court or identified the wrong defendants.

Assuming that the attorney for Tanya Trucker filed the complaint in federal district court and named the State Officials such as the secretary of transportation -- who would likely enforce the legislation, than the State of Confusion has 30 days to respond to the complaint in their Answer. Note that under F.R.C.P rule 5.1- a constitutional challenge to a state statute requires that the court certify that a state statute has been questioned and notify the state Attorney General. If after all of the preliminary motions, subject matter and personal jurisdiction are established, the complaint has been filed and the answer has been filed, the trial will proceed to the next stage. This would include the discovery process which is governed by rules 26-37. During the discovery process both sides will be exchanging information and conducting interviews to prepare for the trial. Both sides would then be prepared to make arguments probably in a bench trial to the judge either arguing for the constitutionality of the statute and asking for judgment in favor of the defendants or arguing that the statute is in fact unconstitutional and requesting judgment in favor of the plaintiffs. Upon a final judgment the losing has a right to appeal pursuant to Rule 60.

As stated earlier the issue is whether the State of Confusion's statute forcing any truckers who drive through the State of Confusion to stop and purchase B-Type Hitches which are sold only in the State of Confusion is unconstitutional. In considering the constitutionality of a state statute that is being challenged under the doctrine of the commerce clause, the federal courts will take their cue from the Supreme Court. Over the years the Supreme Court has allowed states to enforce statutes and regulations when there is a high interest in public safety and the burden of the costs associated with the statute or regulation are enforced equally among state residents and out of state residents. Kassell v. Consolidated Freightways Corp. Of Delaware, U.S. 662, 67 L.E.d.2d 580 (1981). The Supreme Court has indicated that it will analyze the constitutionality of a state constitution by looking how high the burden imposed on non-residents of the state is in addition to what the interest of the state is in enacting the legislation.

Based on this guidance it is likely that the attorney's for Tanya Trucker and the attorney's for the State of Confusion will formulate the issue in two different ways. In the arguments on behalf of the State of Confusion, the Attorney will argue that the statute requiring all trucks on the roads to possess B-Type Hitches is constitutional because it applies to all trucks and the state requires it because it is the safest hitch around or something to that extent. On the other hand, the attorneys for Tanya Trucker will argue that the statute should be invalidated because it is an unfair burden on truckers who don't live in the state and who have to pause and purchase this Hitch for all of their trucks. More importantly, the plaintiffs will argue that statute is just a way for the state of Confusion to raise revenue by requiring that out of state trucks stop to purchase a type of Hitch which is made by only one company located in Confusion.