On rare occasions, I am right about things. By rare, I mean about as often as I win the argument at home, rare.
With that being said, I was actually right about something recently. What in the world could that possibly be you may ask. Simple…. that Truck only tolls are unconstitutional! I know many of you may find this hard to believe as I am the guy who thought the Supreme Court would grant Cert to the California Trucking Association case challenging AB5. Well, they can’t all be home runs.

Despite my abysmal track record, I was (finally) proven to be right about something. Namely that the truck-only tolls in the great state or Rhode Island are unconstitutional!

To refresh your memory, back in 2016 the good folks in the Rhode Island legislature thought that it would be a good idea to impose tolls on vehicles traveling on their roadways. That, in and of itself, would be fine; however, the legislature decided to take it a step further and make the tolls just apply to trucks! And that, my friends, is where the problems began.

In 2016, Gov. Gina Raimondo (now U.S. Commerce Secretary) decided that money needed to be raised to rehabilitate the state’s highways and bridges. Moreover, the state alleged that 70% of the damage to the roadways was caused by big trucks (the methodology for determining this percentage was hotly disputed). In their infinite wisdom, the State decided that only trucks should be made to pay the tolls. This decision would result in only 3% of the vehicles paying 100% of the tolls. This did not pass muster with the court.

At the time, it was argued by many that such a toll was unconstitutional. Well, we were right. In its decision granting a permanent injunction the courts said:

“Because RhodeWorks fails to fairly apportion its tolls among bridge users based on a fair approximation of their use of the bridges, [it] was enacted with a discriminatory purpose and is discriminatory in effect, the statute’s tolling regime is unconstitutional under the dormant Commerce Clause of the United States Constitution.”

As background, the Commerce Clause refers to Article 1, Section8, Clause 3 of the U.S. Constitution which gives Congress the ability to “regulate commerce with foreign nations, and amongst the several states, and with the Indian tribes.” In other words, Congress can use the Commerce Clause to exercise legislative power over the activities of the states. So, in the simplest of terms, the Commerce Clause allows Congress to pass laws and regulate commerce between the states.

The Dormant Commerce Clause, implicit in the Commerce Clause, prohibits the states from passing legislation that discriminates or excessively burdens interstate commerce. This means that states can’t enact protectionist policies that favor state citizens or businesses at the expense of others conducting business in the state. Therein lies the issue with the truck- only tolling regime.

Now, this may seem like a pretty straightforward case and to most, it appeared to violate the Dormant Commerce Clause at its inception. However, it is of major importance to our industry. Quite simply, if truck-only tolling had been found constitutional in Rhode Island it is not a stretch to think that it would be quickly be adopted by other states.

I believe that ATA President Chris Spears said it best in response to the court ruling: “We told Rhode Island’s leaders from the start that their crazy scheme was not only discriminatory, but illegal.” Spears also added: “We’re pleased that the court agreed. To any state looking to target our industry, you better bring you’re a-game … because we’re not rolling over.”

Tags:

Truck Tolls , US Constitution