State of Confusion
The state of Confusion has a statute, which requires trucks and trailers that use its highways to have a B-type hitch, manufactured by one company in the state. This statute would require truckers that want to drive through Confusion to stop and have the hitch installed or drive around the state to avoid violating the law (University of Phoenix). Tanya Trucker owner of a trucking company in Denial is opposed to the statute because of the increased expenses on her company and has planned to file suit against Confusion to overturn the law (University of Phoenix). Overturning the statute will help eliminate an expense on Ms. Trucker's business as well help other truckers and businesses. This paper will determine which court will have jurisdiction and examine if the state of Confusion statute is constitutional.
The statute in the state of Confusion is in direct conflict with the Commerce Clause. The Commerce Clause regulates the interstate commerce which includes the movement of goods from one state to another. Ms. Trucker lives in Denial and is filing suit against the state of Confusion therefore this is a case that should be tried in the federal court system although Ms. Trucker could file suit in Confusion state court. The lawsuit filed by Ms. Trucker is a diversity jurisdiction case because the two opposing parties are in different states. The federal courts have jurisdiction over diversity jurisdiction cases if they question state law and both parties are in different states. Tanya Trucker must prove that the statute in the state of Confusion violates the Commerce Clause to file her case in federal court.
Article 1, Section 8, and Clause 3 (known as the Commerce Clause) of the U.S. Constitution gives the federal government the authority to regulate interstate...