State of Confusion Paper

In this case I will be covering the issues that are detained with the state of Confusion and Tanya Trucker who have a trucking company in the state of Denial. The state of Confusion has pass a statute requiring all trucks and towing trailers that use the highways to use a special type of truck hitch. This hitch is only made by one company in the state of Confusion. The statute states that anyone traveling through the state of Confusion must stop by and have this new hitch installed or just drive around the state. She is very upset because this statute makes her spend more money on her trucking business. Tanya is filing a suit opposed to the state of Confusion to have the statute reversed.

I will go over, “What court should have jurisdiction over Tanya’s suit and why”? I think that both State court and Federal court may have the jurisdiction over Tanya’s suit. Tanya needs to file with the federal court because of how they will construe the law. The state court will show favoritism in uphold their laws. In addition, Tanya could file suit in the federal court for violating the commerce clause of the constitution. “The commerce clause grants the federal government the authority to regulate interstate commerce.” I am propensity more towards this case being a civil case since both the parties, Tanya Trucker and State of Confusion, are private. Civil Court will deal with the disputes between individuals, organizations, or between the two, in which compensation is awarded to the victim. In the civil court, the plaintiff Tanya Trucker can charge State of Confusion in civil litigation and reimburses the plaintiff for losses caused by the defendant’s behavior of forcing it to use a B-type truck hitch. I also believe that the Confusion statue is not constitutional. It appears that the Confusion state was trying to make money for one specific manufacturer who happens to be within its borders.