Copyright February 2004 State Bar of California The National Highway Transportation and Safety Administration (NHTSA), a federal agency, after appropriate hearings and investigation, made the following finding of fact: The NHTSA finds that, while motor vehicle radar detectors have some beneficial purpose in keeping drivers alert to the speed of their vehicles, most are used to avoid highway speed-control traps and lawful apprehension by law enforcement officials for violations of speed-control laws. On the basis of this finding, NHTSA promulgated regulations banning the use of radar detectors in trucks with a gross weight of five tons or more on all roads and highways within the United States. State X subsequently enacted a statute banning the use of radar detectors in any motor vehicle on any road or highway in State X. The State X Highway Department (Department) enforces the statute. The American Car Association (ACA) is an association comprised of automobile motorists residing throughout the United States. One of ACA s purposes is to promote free and unimpeded automobile travel. ACA has received numerous complaints about the State X statute from its members who drive vehicles there. In response to such complaints, ACA has filed suit against the Department in federal district court in State X, seeking a declaration that the State X statute is invalid under the Commerce Clause and the Supremacy Clause of the United States Constitution. The Department has moved to dismiss ACA s complaint on the ground that ACA lacks standing. 1. How should the court rule on the Department s motion to dismiss on the ground of ACA s lack of standing? Discuss. 2. On the assumption that ACA has standing, how should the court decide ACA s claim that the State X statute is invalid under the Commerce Clause and the Supremacy Clause of the United States Constitution? Discuss.
Copyright February 2004 Scott F. Pearce, Esq. Outline I. The court should deny the Department s motion to dismiss on standing grounds. A. The litigation is relevant to the Association s purpose. B. Individual members of the Association would have standing. C. No participation by individual members is needed. D. Conclusion II. The Court Should Decide Against ACA s Constitutional Challenges to the State X statute A. Commerce Clause 1. Speed Limits are a reasonable exercise of the Police Power 2. Banning use of radar detectors does not unreasonably burden commerce 3. The State X law does not discriminate against other states. 4. Conclusion: The State X statute does not violate the Commerce Clause B. Supremacy Clause C. Conclusion: ACA s Constitutional Challenges to the State X statute will fail.
Copyright February 2004 Scott F. Pearce, Esq. Answer I. The court should deny the Department s motion to dismiss on standing grounds. The American Car Association (ACA) has filed a federal suit against the State X Highway Department (Department) seeking declaratory relief concerning the State X ban on the use of radar detectors by all vehicles within State X. Department has moved to dismiss ACA s complaint on the ground that ACA lacks standing. There is a clear rule governing association standing in federal court, which consists of a three-part test. First, the litigation must be relevant to the association s purpose. Second, individual members must have standing. Finally, individual members must not need to participate in the litigation. A. The litigation is relevant to the Association s purpose. The ACA is an association comprised of automobile motorists residing throughout the United States. One of ACA s purposes is to promote free and unimpeded automobile travel. Department is charged with enforcement of the State X statute banning the use of radar detectors in any motor vehicle on any road or highway in State X. Since other states permit the use of radar detectors, the State X prohibition will inhibit free and unimpeded automobile travel. There is no doubt that the instant case is relevant to the ACA s purpose. B. Individual members of the Association would have standing. ACA has received numerous complaints about the State X statute from its members who drive vehicles there. It is safe to assume that at least some of these individuals have been cited for their illegal use of radar detectors, and that others have been cited for speeding who would have complied with the speed laws had they been able to use radar detectors. These individual members would have standing to challenge the State X law because they have suffered an injury in fact. Even if no ACA members have been cited as a result of the State X law, the fact that they are subject to the risk of criminal citation would likely be enough for them to establish personal standing. C. No participation by individual members is needed. ACA s federal lawsuit challenges the State X statute under the Commerce Clause and the Supremacy Clause of the US Constitution. This is a broad Constitutional challenge; it does not require considering the specific facts of any individual case. ACA can litigate the issues without requiring the participation of any individual members.
D. Conclusion ACA can satisfy all three requirements for association standing. The court should deny the Department s motion to dismiss on standing grounds. II. The Court Should Decide Against ACA s Constitutional Challenges to the State X statute ACA s action seeks a declaration that the State X statute is invalid under the Commerce Clause and the Supremacy Clause of the US Constitution. The following analysis indicates that both of ACA s challenges should fail. A. Commerce Clause The US Constitution prohibits the States from enacting legislation that unduly burdens interstate commerce, nor may the States pass laws that discriminate against the commerce of other states. 1. Speed Limits are a reasonable exercise of the Police Power The proposition that speed limits are inherently within the realm of the police power of State X is undisputed. Department s enforcement of the ban on the use of radar detectors on all motor vehicles is an apparent effort to facilitate the enforcement of speed-control laws within State X. 2. Banning use of radar detectors does not unreasonably burden commerce It is difficult to see how the State X law burdens interstate commerce at all. Driving motor vehicles is a privilege, not a right. Drivers do not have a right to violate speed-control laws. Perhaps any speed-control law would burden interstate commerce, but this burden would be vastly outweighed by the economic and non-economic benefits of maintaining higher levels of safety on streets and highways. Traffic safety is an important and legitimate public interest. The State X law will not require drivers to modify their vehicles in order to operate them in State X, because it does not seek to ban possession of radar detectors. Instead, the statute merely bans their use by drivers within State X. 3. The State X law does not discriminate against other states. The State X law is a blanket prohibition against the use of radar detectors in State X. Drivers from all the states are subject to the law equally. 4. Conclusion: The State X statute does not violate the Commerce Clause The State X law does not place any significant burden on or discriminate against interstate commerce. Consequently, ACA s Commerce Clause challenge to the State X law will fail.
B. Supremacy Clause Because of the Supremacy Clause, states are forbidden from passing laws that conflict with federal laws, treaties, regulations, or the US Constitution. Here, the National Highway Transportation and Safety Administration (NHTSA) promulgated regulations banning the use of radar detectors with a gross weight of five tons or more on all roads and highways within the United States. The State X law extends this provision to all motor vehicles in State X. It is well established that states may regulate conduct more extensively than a federal law so long as the state law does not conflict with or frustrate the objectives of the federal law. In this case, the State X law is entirely consistent with the NHTSA regulations. The federal agency s findings of fact indicated that most radar detectors are used to avoid speed-control law enforcement. Thus, rather than violating the Supremacy Clause, the State X law furthers and advances the purpose of the NHTSA regulation. The federal objective is effective local speed law enforcement. The State X law takes the next logical step to tighten the enforcement of speed laws within State X. C. Conclusion ACA s Constitutional challenges to the State X statute will fail. The State X statute does not violate either the Commerce Clause or the Supremacy Clause.