Introduction
This paper analyzes the case between Tanya, a lady involved in trucking business in state of Denial and the State of Confusion after establishing a new statute. The new law requires all truckers driving through and within Confusion to adopt B-type truck hitches. These hitches are manufactured in the state by only one manufacturer. Therefore, Tanya is concerned that the statute is unfair to her business and will affect it negatively. She is determined to file the suit, yet she must understand the working of the court system. She might be required to answer questions such as; the court responsible over the case, constitution standpoint of the statute, provisions in place for the statute validity and likelihood of prevailing on the case.
Responsible court
The federal court is obliged to handle suits involved with diversification of citizenship (Cheeseman, 2010). The case will be held by the federal district court of Confusion and the reason is the contradictory issues presenting the resolution are not final results. In most cases, such cases will end up in a court of appeal which makes the final judgment. Apparently, Tanya’s lawsuit involves two interstate parties, state of Confusion and Tanya from Denial. She would file the suit as an infringement of the Commerce Article defined by the federal constitution. The clause has the directive to regulate business across different states, with native Indians and with foreign countries. The federal government is mandated to regulate commerce across states. The interstate commerce enacts statutes that control business practices according to the requirements of the federal constitution.
Constitutional position of the statute
The Confusion law is not constitution according to Cheeseman (2010, p.87) who states that individual “states should not enact statutes that infringe the federal constitution”. As depicted in the case, there were no adjustments made by the federal government on the trucking laws. It can then be argued that the state of Confusion acted against the federal constitution. Moreover, the commerce clause prohibits states from compelling another state to pay duties when using its ports. By requiring all trucks to use the hinges manufactured within the state is to compel the trucks to pay duties indirectly.
In addition, the truck hitch required in the Confusion statute is manufactured by only one firm located in the state of Confusion. The state’s actions of establishing a new law are is direct infringement of the federal antitrust statutes. With just one firm producing that kind of hitch and the rise in demand for the firm’s product, a monopoly in the market is created. Constitutionally, a monopoly is prohibited because it prevents effective competition in the market and destroys the right of interstate commerce.
Provisions the court can use to verify the statute
The federal government is mandated to regulate business across states including trucking business. Truckers within the United States have the right to drive through any state without state restrictions that violate federal constitution. The Commerce Act that defines interstate trade determines the validity of Confusion statute (Cheeseman, 2010). The federal constitution defines three provisions associated with the suit: the frameworks of interstate trade, means of interstate trade and practices with substantial impact on interstate trade. In addition, the revenue collection act also has provisions that can be used to determine the validity of the statute. This clause prohibits a state from collecting taxes from those vessels coming from other states. This clause can also be extended to trucking activities within Confusion state since the motive of the statute is apparently revenue-oriented. The court will use the provisions from the two clauses to determine the validity of Confusion statute.
Likelihood of Tanya wining the suit
Most importantly, the Confusion statute infringes the federal constitution which makes Tanya to be inclined on the winning side. There is no reason for the jury to decide otherwise and the mere fact that Confusion is determined to increase revenue through the statute is enough to make a decision. The state requires all trucks to use a kind of hitch that is only found within the state. This means that the state is revenue-focused because the hitches bought for trucks from other states will be useless once the trucks are out of Confusion. The other states have not regulated such requirements. The state of confusion has no legal point to defend their statute as it openly describes the exploitive motive of the state. Despite the state regulators having the responsibility to enact state laws, the responsibility does not surpass what is defined by the federal constitution.
Conclusion
The lawsuit Tanya wants to file against state of Confusion is self explanatory for somebody who understands the US court system and constitution. The statute established by the state is unconstitutional according to the provisions defined in the Commerce Article. There are also the commerce clause and revenue clause which question the validity of the statute. Therefore, Tanya will likely win the case although it has to undergo the several stages of a civil lawsuit.
Reference
Cheeseman, H. (2010). The legal environment of business and online commerce. Upper Saddle River, NJ: Pearson Education, Inc.