Am. Trucking Ass'ns v. Mich. PSC

Am. Trucking Ass'ns v. Mich. PSC

Opinion

 [*431]   [**2421]  Justice Breyer delivered the opinion of the Court.

In this case, we consider whether a flat $100 fee that Michigan charges trucks engaging in intrastate commercial hauling violates the dormant Commerce Clause. We hold that it does not.

 [**2422]  I

] A subsection of Michigan's Motor Carrier Act imposes upon each motor carrier "for the administration of this act, an annual fee of $100.00 for each self-propelled motor vehicle operated by or on [****5]  behalf of the motor carrier." Mich. Comp. Laws Ann. § 478.2(1) (West 2002). The provision assesses the fee upon, and only upon, vehicles that engage in intrastate commercial operations--that is, on trucks that undertake point-to-point hauls between Michigan cities. See Westlake Transp., Inc. v. Michigan Pub. Serv. Comm'n, 255 Mich. App. 589, 592-594, 662 N.W.2d 784, 789 (2003). Petitioners, USF Holland, Inc., a trucking company with trucks that engage in both interstate and intrastate hauling, and the American Trucking Associations, Inc. (ATA), asked the Michigan courts to invalidate the provision. Both petitioners [*432]  told those courts that trucks that carry both interstate and intrastate loads engage in intrastate business less than trucks that confine their operations to the Great Lakes State.  [***412]  Hence, because Michigan's fee is flat, it discriminates against interstate carriers and imposes an unconstitutional burden upon interstate trade.

The Michigan Court of Claims rejected the carriers' claim for three reasons. First, the $100 fee "is regulatory and intended" for the Motor Carrier Act's administration, which includes "regulation of vehicular size [****6]  and weight, insurance requirements and safety standards." App. to Pet. for Cert. 44a. Such a fee "is not amenable to a fee structure based on apportionment by usage rates." Ibid. Second, the fee reflects a "legitimate expression of the [S]tate's concern that the welfare of its citizens be protected," and hence an appropriate exercise of the State's police power. Ibid. Third, the fee does not implicate the Commerce Clause because it falls only on intrastate, not interstate, commerce. Id., at 45a.

The Michigan Court of Appeals affirmed. It did not agree that the intrastate nature of § 478.2(1) sheltered the fee from Commerce Clause scrutiny.  255 Mich. App. , at 617-619, 662 N. W. 2d, at 802. Nonetheless, the court rejected the truckers' claim because the statute "regulates evenhandedly," id., at 621, 662 N. W. 2d, at 804, and because the record lacked any "evidence that any trucking firm's route choices [were] affected by the imposition of the fee," id., at 621, 662 N. W. 2d, at 803-804. Rather, the record indicated that any "effect . . . on interstate commerce is incidental," rendering the truckers' claim of discrimination [****7]  "a matter of pure speculation." Ibid.

Full case includes Shepard's, Headnotes, Legal Analytics from Lex Machina, and more.