Home › Case briefs › Constitutional Law

Kassel v. Consolidated Freightways Corp.

Supreme Court of the United States · 1981 · Constitutional Law

Constitutional LawCommerce ClauseDormant Commerce ClauseState highway safety regulationCommerce Clausedormant Commerce Clauseinterstate truckinghighway safety

Facts

Iowa generally barred 65-foot double-trailer trucks from its highways while allowing shorter trucks and several exemptions, including special treatment for some border cities and certain local interests. Because of the statute, Consolidated could not use its preferred 65-foot doubles through Iowa and instead had to use smaller trucks, break up doubles, or route around the State. After a lengthy trial, the District Court found that 65-foot doubles were as safe as 55-foot singles and that Iowa's law imposed substantial added costs on interstate trucking. The Court of Appeals accepted those findings and affirmed invalidation of the law.

Issue

Whether Iowa's statutory prohibition on 65-foot double-trailer trucks, defended as a highway safety measure, unconstitutionally burdens interstate commerce in violation of the Commerce Clause.

Rule

Even in the field of highway safety, where state regulations receive a strong presumption of validity, courts must weigh the nature and weight of the asserted state safety interest against the extent of the burden imposed on interstate commerce. A state safety regulation violates the Commerce Clause when the asserted safety justification is illusory or marginal and the regulation substantially impairs the federal interest in efficient interstate transportation.

🔒

See the holding & full analysis

Create a free KwikCourt account to unlock the rest of this brief — and practice the case.

The court's holding and reasoning
Doctrine tests, pitfalls & exam hypotheticals
10 practice questions + 4 AI-graded essays on this case

Free sample · practice this case

Test yourself

One of 10 multiple-choice questions for this case. Pick an answer to see why.

Nebraska bars 72-foot twin-trailer trucks from all state highways, while allowing 62-foot trucks and ordinary semis. After trial, the court finds the banned twins are at least as safe overall as the vehicles Nebraska permits, but the ban forces interstate carriers to reroute through Kansas or break loads in Omaha at substantial annual cost.

If the regulation is challenged under the dormant Commerce Clause, which result is most likely?

Explanation. Even in highway safety, courts must weigh the nature and weight of the asserted safety interest against the burden on interstate commerce. Where the record shows the banned trucks are at least as safe as permitted alternatives and the law causes major rerouting, load-breaking, and expense, the State lacks a significant countervailing safety interest. Under the majority's approach, such a regulation violates the Commerce Clause.