Constitutional Law Case Study --

Constitutional Law Case Study -- Confusion vs Denial

Facts and Constitutional Issues Raised

The State of Confusion statute places a significant burden on all trucking originating outside of Confusion because it requires them either to avoid passing through Confusion or to endure the inconvenience and expense of having a particular piece of equipment installed on their trucks to comply with the Confusion State statute at issue. While the Confusion State statute does conflict with any specific constitutional provision or act of Congress (such as where allowing any type of trailer hitch is expressly permitted), it nevertheless raises constitutional questions in relation to the supremacy of federal authority over local (i.e. state) authority where a conflict exists or arises, and the so-called "dormant commerce clause" pursuant to which the federal government maintains exclusive authority to regulate interstate commerce (Edwards, Wattenberg, & Lineberry, 2007)

Under certain factual situations, such a statute might survive a constitutional challenge, but to do so, the State of Confusion would have to establish that the legislative requirement satisfies the traditional criteria used to determine the appropriateness of state statutes that burden interstate commerce and to distinguish justifiable state mandates from those that are unjustifiable pursuant to those criteria (Edwards, Wattenberg, & Lineberry, 2007).

Jurisdiction, Venue, and Civil Procedure

Because the case involves a federal question involving (in the statute's effect) the regulation of interstate commerce, the case would have to filed in a federal court with jurisdiction to entertain federal questions (Dershowitz, 2002; Friedman, 2005). Tanya would probably file her case challenging the state statute of constitutional grounds in a federal court in the State of Confusion. Alternatively, Tanya could attempt to exercise so-called "long-arm" jurisdiction to file the case in a federal court in Denial, predicated on the fact that the Confusion State statute directly affects the residents of the State of Denial (Dershowitz, 2002; Friedman, 2005). Most likely, the federal court will order that the proper venue for the case is in the State of Confusion where the statute actually causes the harms claimed by residents of the State of Denial and other sovereign states (Dershowitz, 2002; Friedman, 2005).

.Constitutional Issues and Relevant Clauses of the U.S. Constitution

Under the Supremacy Clause of Article IV of the U.S. Constitution, any state statute that conflicts with any constitutional act or any law enacted by the Congress (Edwards, Wattenberg, & Lineberry, 2007). Moreover, even when state statutes do not conflict with existing congressional exercises of power, they may be invalid where they affect areas over which Congress maintains authority to act (Dershowitz, 2002; Friedman, 2005). Because the Constitution does not expressly limit state authority over intrastate or interstate commerce, state statutes in both areas are valid unless or until they conflict with the express power granted to Congress to regulate interstate commerce (Edwards, Wattenberg, & Lineberry, 2007).

However, where a state statute exerts control over matters capable of being regulated by Congress under the Commerce Clause, those statutes are invalid because they conflict with a concept that is generally referred to as the "dormant Commerce Clause" (Dershowitz, 2002; Friedman, 2005). In modern application, federal courts apply a three-pronged test to determine whether or not a given state statute is invalid by virtue of a conflict with Congressional constitutional authority in relation to the exercise of the dormant Commerce Clause. In that regard, the first consideration is whether or not the statute is "even-handed" and only burdens interstate commerce "incidentally" and without discriminating against intestate commerce either on its face or in its effects. The second consideration is whether the statute furthers an objectively legitimate state purpose. The third consideration is whether any state statute that does further a legitimate state purpose does so in a manner that is more restrictive than necessary to achieve that purpose and (also) whether those same goals or purposes are capable of being achieved through less discriminatory means than those imposed by the statute at issue (Dershowitz, 2002; Friedman, 2005).

Analysis and Likely Outcome

Tanya will probably prevail in her challenge and succeed in overturning the Confusion State statute. The statute does not satisfy the applicable criteria used to determine its constitutional validity. First, the statute is not "even-handed" because it burdens interstate commerce substantially rather than only "incidentally." It also discriminates against intestate commerce, certainly in its effects even if not necessarily on its face, by (in effect) requiring all interstate trucks to avoid a direct route through Confusion or stop in Confusion to purchase a trailer hitch.