State of Confusion
The state of Confusion has the constitutional right to regulate different aspects of safety requirements. One statute that has come under scrutiny is the requirement of all trucks and towing trailers to use B-type truck hitches if that truck is to enter the state. One such company is based in a different state is challenging the statute as unconstitutional.
The United States District Court of the state of Confusion will have jurisdiction because this is where the statute is being enforced. Within the United States, each state has the authority to make and enforce laws provided the laws do not countermand the federal laws. Each state can interpret federal laws to best protect the citizens of the state. The federal government has not regulated the truck hitches that are currently used. The state of Confusion has the authority to regulate. With Tanya Trucker’s company headquarters located in the state of Denial, she can request the suit be brought to the federal courts. The federal courts would have jurisdiction as well because of the diversity of citizenship. The cost of the b-train hitch potentially becomes prohibitive as any truck that uses the hitch stays that way. “B-Trains are usually special purpose machines that remain together as a pair” (University of New Brunswick, n.d.). A used b-train truck can sell for $89,000 (Discover Automobiles, 2008). By bringing the case to the federal court, a state court bias can be avoided as well. Since it is the state that has made this statute, the state would have reason to be biased in the case. Another reason the federal court can hear the case is because it involves interpreting the federal statute.
The statute may be legal as the state has the authority to interpret the federal statute in regards to how it applies to the state. The state has a vested interest in this particular statute as only one company manufactures this type of hitch and the place of business is within the state of Confusion. This statute enforces a monopoly as only Confusion requires this specific hitch and the only manufacture is in Confusion. As the installation of this hitch now creates a specialized truck, the truck would become unusable for its original intended purpose thereby creating an undue burden on any company that did not typically have use for the hitch. It restricts inter-state commerce as companies would have to either purchase the hitch or extend the length of the trip by going around the state.
The United States Constitution, Article 3 section 2 states which cases may be heard by the federal judiciary. As this case involves the interpretation of the United States legislature, it would qualify in the federal court system as a limited jurisdiction. The Commerce Clause allows Congress the power to regulate commerce between nations, states and Native American tribes. This clause helps to regulate the states from this type situation. Commerce between states is encouraged.
Tanya Trucker should prevail in this case. The time and cost associated with the installation of the hitch as well as the conversion to a specialized vehicle is prohibitive. Since the cost is prohibitive, it would create a hardship as any truck that did not want or need the hitch would have to avoid the state of Confusion in order to avoid the additional cost. Again, this restriction interferes with commerce and places undue hardship on companies that would need to trade inside the state of Confusion as well as travel through the state.
The federal government regulates the width, lengths and heights of trucks. There is a provision for different types of hitches. None specify a certain type that is required for safety. According to U.S. Department of Transportation (2004), "States must allow CMVs that do not exceed Federal maximum width and minimum length limits applicable to the NN… to have reasonable access between the NN and terminals and facilities for food, fuel, repairs, and rest.” (Reasonable Access, para. 1). NN means national network. By prohibiting the trucks without the specialized hitch access to the interstates that run through Confusion, the state is countermanding the federal law. This increases the chance of Tanya Trucker prevailing in the case and having the statute deemed unconstitutional.
The basic stages of a civil suit involve the plaintiff filing a complaint, notification of the complaint served on the defendant, discovery and answers by both parties, and then litigation.
Within those stages are pretrial meetings with the judge where pretrial motions are heard and either admitted or dismissed. If the case proceeds forward, then there is a trial. The court would hear both sides and a verdict and judgment would be rendered. If the non winning party felt there had been any problems with the trial, an appeal could be heard. No new evidence could be introduced and the case examined from a standpoint of if there were any errors made during the trial.
In conclusion, while the state potentially has jurisdiction, the conflict of interest along with the diversity of citizen and Commerce clause would prevail and the case would be heard in the federal court. Preventing trucks from driving across the state lines because of not having a certain trailer hitch interferes with the interstate commerce. Interstate commerce is regulated by the federal government. “The modern rule, however, allows the federal government to regulate activities that affect interstate commerce” Cheeseman, (2010). The statute regulating the truck hitches affects interstate commerce.

References
Discover Automobiles. (2008). Western Star 34 / 30 B-train Trucks. Retrieved March 17, 2010 from http://www.discoverautomobiles.com/trucks/mftr_model_result_list.php?
MID=WESTERN%20STAR&MDLID=34%20/%2030%20B-TRAIN
U.S. Department of Transportation. (2004). Federal Size Regulations for Commercial Motor Vehicles. Retrieved March 17, 2010 from http://ops.fhwa.dot.gov/freight/publications/ size_regs_final_rpt/size_regs_final_rpt.pdf University of New Brunswick. (n.d.). DOUBLES: A-Train, B-Train, C-Train; Tractor towing two Trailers. Retrieved March 17, 2010 from http://www.unb.ca/transpo/mynet/mty40.htm
Cheeseman, H. (2010). The Legal Environment of Business and Online Commerce. Retrieved March 16, 2010 from University of Phoenix, BUS415 - Business Law website.