Bibb, Director, Dept. of Public Safety of Illinois v. Navajo Freight Lines, Inc.
359 U.S. 520 (1959)
Premium Feature
Subscribe to Lexplug to listen to the Case Podcast.
Rule of Law:
A non-discriminatory state law enacted for safety purposes may nonetheless violate the Commerce Clause if the burden it imposes on interstate commerce is clearly excessive in relation to the putative local benefits.
Facts:
- Illinois enacted a statute requiring all trucks and trailers operating on its highways to be equipped with a specific type of contour mudguard.
- This required contour mudguard was different from the conventional straight mudflap, which was legal in at least 45 other states.
- Navajo Freight Lines and other appellees are interstate motor carriers whose operations require travel through Illinois and other states.
- A regulation from the Arkansas Commerce Commission required trucks operating in that state to use conventional straight mudflaps.
- The Illinois and Arkansas regulations were in direct conflict, making it impossible for a single vehicle to be in compliance in both states simultaneously.
- Switching between the contour and straight mudguards required two to four hours of labor and was dangerous if the trailer carried explosives due to the welding required.
- The Illinois requirement seriously interfered with the common trucking practice of "interlining," where trailers are exchanged between carriers for through-service.
- Evidence presented at trial indicated the contour mudguards offered no significant safety advantages over conventional mudflaps and might even introduce new hazards, such as causing brake drums to overheat.
Procedural Posture:
- Navajo Freight Lines and other interstate motor carriers sued Illinois state officials in a specially constituted three-judge U.S. District Court.
- The carriers sought to enjoin the enforcement of the Illinois mudguard statute, arguing it violated the Commerce Clause.
- The District Court found the statute unconstitutional on the grounds that it unduly and unreasonably burdened interstate commerce.
- The District Court issued an injunction preventing Illinois officials from enforcing the statute.
- The Illinois officials (appellants) filed a direct appeal to the Supreme Court of the United States, which noted probable jurisdiction.
Premium Content
Subscribe to Lexplug to view the complete brief
You're viewing a preview with Rule of Law, Facts, and Procedural Posture
Issue:
Does an Illinois statute requiring trucks and trailers to use a specific type of contour mudguard, which is illegal in another state and conflicts with the standard practice in most others, violate the Commerce Clause by imposing an undue burden on interstate commerce?
Opinions:
Majority - Mr. Justice Douglas
Yes. While states have broad power to regulate highway safety, a state safety measure that is non-discriminatory may still be unconstitutional if it places an excessive burden on interstate commerce. The Court applied a balancing test, weighing the national interest in free-flowing commerce against the state's interest in safety. Here, the Illinois statute imposes a 'massive showing of burden' through significant costs, disruption of interline operations, and a direct conflict with Arkansas law, which makes compliance with both impossible. Against this clear burden, the evidence of the contour mudguard's safety benefits was 'far too inconclusive.' Unlike prior cases where equipment could be used in any state, this law creates a conflict that impedes the uniform flow of commerce, passing the permissible limits even for a safety regulation.
Concurring - Mr. Justice Harlan
Yes. The judgment is affirmed because the Illinois statute imposes a heavy burden on interstate commerce through cost and interference with 'interlining.' The findings from the District Court, fully justified by the record, showed that the contour mudflap 'possesses no advantages' in safety over the conventional flap and, in fact, creates its own safety hazards. Therefore, the significant burden on commerce cannot be justified as a necessary or even helpful local safety measure.
Analysis:
This case refines the dormant Commerce Clause balancing test established in Southern Pacific Co. v. Arizona. It clarifies that even non-discriminatory state safety regulations will be struck down if they impose a substantial burden on interstate commerce without a compelling and demonstrable local benefit. The decision emphasizes the need for national uniformity in regulations affecting interstate transportation equipment. By invalidating a law that created a direct conflict with another state's regulation, the Court signaled that states cannot enact idiosyncratic rules that Balkanize interstate commerce, especially when the purported safety justification is weak.
Unlock the full brief for Bibb, Director, Dept. of Public Safety of Illinois v. Navajo Freight Lines, Inc.