Raymond Motor Transportation, Inc. v. Rice

434 U.S. 429 (1980)

Purchase the Printed Copy at bsmsphd.com

Nature of the Case

To access this section all you need to do is click here and register.

Facts

Appellant Raymond is a common carrier of general commodities by motor vehicle. Raymond provides service in eastern North Dakota, Minnesota, northern Illinois, and northwestern Indiana. Its primary interstate route is between Chicago and Minneapolis. It does not serve any points in Wisconsin. Appellant Consolidated is a common carrier of general commodities by motor vehicle. Consolidated operates nationwide, providing service under a certificate of public convenience and necessity in 42 States and Canada. Among other routes, Consolidated carries commodities between Chicago, Detroit, and points east, and Minneapolis and points west to Seattle. Consolidated does carry commodities between Wisconsin and other States, and it maintains terminals in Milwaukee and Madison where truckloads of goods are dispatched and received. Both Raymond and Consolidated use two different kinds of trucks. One consists of a three-axle power unit (tractor) which pulls a single two-axle trailer that is 40 feet long. The overall length of such a single-trailer unit (single) is 55 feet. This unit has been used on the Nation's highways for many years and is an industry standard. The other type truck consists of a two-axle tractor which pulls a single-axle trailer to which a single-axle dolly and a second single-axle trailer are attached. Each trailer is 27 feet long, and the overall length of such a double-trailer unit (double) is 65 feet. Because of logistics advantages, both companies would prefer to use doubles. Wisconsin law, however, generally does not allow trucks longer than 55 feet to be operated on highways within that State without a permit. Both Raymond and Consolidated each applied to the appropriate Wisconsin officials under 348.27 (6) for annual permits to operate 65-foot doubles. The permits were denied because appellants' proposed operations were not within the narrow scope of the administrative regulations that specify when 'trailer train' permits will be issued. Appellants then filed suit in Federal District Court seeking declaratory and injunctive relief on the ground that the regulations barring the proposed operation of 65-foot doubles burden and discriminate against interstate commerce in violation of the Commerce Clause, Art. I, 8, cl. 3. The State's amended answer advanced highway safety as its sole justification. Appellants presented a great deal of evidence supporting their allegation that 65-foot doubles are as safe as, if not safer than, 55-foot singles when operated on limited-access, four-lane divided highways. The State, for reasons unexplained, made no effort to contradict this evidence of comparative safety with evidence of its own. The court found that the Wisconsin regulatory scheme does not discriminate against interstate commerce. The court also considered 'whether the burden imposed upon interstate commerce outweighs the benefits to the local populace,' and concluded that it did not. Appellants contend that the State's refusal to issue the requested 'trailer train' permits under 348.27 (6) burdens interstate commerce in violation of the Commerce Clause because it substantially interferes with the movement of goods in interstate commerce and makes no contribution to highway and they argue that 348.27 (4), authorizing issuance of 'interplant' permits, discriminates against interstate commerce in violation of the Commerce Clause because it allows permits to be issued to carry the products of Wisconsin industries, but not of other States' industries, over Wisconsin highways in trucks longer than 55 feet.