Question

2. The state of Iowa had a statute limiting to 55 feet the length of trucks on its highways. This made it illegal for commonly used double-trailer trucks 65 feet long to use Iowa highways. The shippers had to use shorter trucks or go around the state. Iowa justified the regulation on the basis of safety on the highways and because the bigger trucks caused more damage to its highways. Was then egulation constitutional? [Kassel v. Consolidated Preightways Corp., 450 U.S. 662 (1981)]
what is the IRAC solution to this?

Answer 1

Issue

As per the order passed by state of L, trucks of length more than 55 feet are not allowed to use state highways. This was done to ensure more safety on highways. Instead they could use shorter trucks or take long routes for travelling. Thus, C sued L and other associated members.

Rule

States have regulatory powers concerning its interest. However, these powers cannot impede interstate commerce. In this case, the regulation impeded interstate commerce by burdening transportation of material. The Supreme Court deemed that the regulation was too costly and showed no significant benefit to safety.

Analysis

Court of appeals found that the efforts to ensure safety for the residents of L is indispensable but it cannot be done at the costs of others. The unnecessary burden of cost of moving items in the city by C seems unconstitutional on its part. L offended that order was passed to improve the conditions on highways and diverting trucks loads on highways can prove to be a good measure to ensure safety to residents.

Conclusion

This cannot be said as under permissible interest as one party is greatly affected from such kind of decision taken by L. One cannot be benefitted at the cost of other and thus, this kind of regulation cannot be said as constitutional.