Tanya Trucker vs State of Confusion

The federal court will have full jurisdiction over Tanya Trucker’s suit against the State of Confusion. According to the US court systems (uscourts.gov), federal courts have jurisdiction over cases that arise between state lines. Controversies that arise between two states or a state and the citizen of another state are to be held under federal jurisdiction. The case is one of controversy between a trucking company and a state law. Thus according to Article III, Section 2 of the U.S. Constitution, even though states are allowed to create further laws under those created by federal law, if a state law poses a controversy those concerns will be reviewed by a higher court system. The state of Confusion’s statute of using only a certain type of hitch (a B-type hitch that is only made in Confusion) in order to drive through the state is being used only as a financial gain. Confusion knows that truckers need to drive through the state and by creating this statute, allows the state to gain financially. The law for B-type hitches was not made to create safer roadways. This was created to make each truck driver to stop upon entering the state, purchase the new hitch, and then continue onwards. Therefore this statute can be considered unconstitutional on the means of it being solely created to produce extra income for the state. The Commerce clause determines whether or not a federal statute in constitutional, as well as allowing Congress to regulate the clause based on the channels of interstate commerce, persons or things in interstate commerce, or activities that relate to the latter. Because the statute involves the highway commerce, the court must determine whether or not this law set up by Confusion has any validity. Tanya will most certainly win this lawsuit against the State of Confusion. Requiring a B-type hitch when