State of Confusion Paper

* What court will have jurisdiction over Tanya's suit? Why?

Because the two entities involved are based in different states (called "diversity of citizenship"), the U.S. District Court having jurisdiction over the states of Confusion and Denial will likely hear the case. It likely will not be the U.S. Supreme Court because it rarely has original jurisdiction over its cases.

* Is the Confusion statute constitutional? Discuss your legal reasoning.

No, the Confusion statute is unconstitutional. This is because it is violating the dormant commerce clause. This clause says that states cannot implement intrastate commerce regulations that place a “substantial burden on interstate commerce,” which Confusion’s regulation does.

* What provisions of the U.S. Constitution will be applied by a court to determine the statute's validity?

A court will examine whether Confusion’s regulation places a “substantial burden on interstate commerce” according to the commerce clause (Article I, Section 8, Clause 3 of the Constitution). It will also likely consider Gibbons v. Ogden, discussed below.

* Is Tanya likely to prevail on her suit? Explain the reasons for your answer.

Yes, she is likely to prevail. It appears that Confusion’s regulation places a “substantial burden on interstate commerce.” This case also conflicts with the decision of the U.S. Supreme Court in the case of Gibbons v. Ogden, 22 U.S. 1 (1824). In Gibbons, the state of New York attempted to grant a steamboat monopoly to a single individual. In this case, the Confusion regulation would essentially do the same – give a monopoly to the single Confusion manufacturer making the hitches.

* Set forth in detail the stages of a civil suit.