Mid-con Freight Systems, Inc., et al. v. Michigan Public Service Commission, et al. (545 U.S. 440)
U.S. Supreme Court · decided June 20, 2005 · Supreme Court Database (Spaeth)
- Citation
- 545 U.S. 440 · 125 S. Ct. 2427
- Decided
- June 20, 2005
- Term
- October Term 2004
- Vote
- 6–3
- Majority author
- Justice Breyer
- Issue area
- Federalism
- Disposition
- Affirmed
- Outcome
- Petitioning party lost
- Ideological direction
- Conservative
Opinion excerpt
Justice Breyer delivered the opinion of the Court. This case concerns pre-emption. A Michigan law imposes “an annual fee of $100.00” upon each Michigan license-plated truck that is “operating entirely in interstate commerce.” Mich. Comp. Laws Ann. §478.2(2) (West 2002) (hereinafter MCL). A federal statute states that “a State registration requirement , . . is an unreasonable burden” upon interstate commerce when it imposes so high a fee. 49 U. S. C. § 14504(b) (emphasis added); see also § 14504(e)(2)(B)(iv)(III). Does this federal statutory provision pre-empt the Michigan law? We conclude that the Michigan fee requirement is not the kind of “State registration requirement” to which the federal statute refers. And for that reason, the statute does not pre-empt it. I A Federal law has long required most motor carriers doing interstate business to obtain a permit — which we shall call a Federal Permit — that reflects compliance with certain federal requirements. See 49 U. S. C. § 13901 et seq.; 49 CFR § 365.101 et seq. (2004). In 1965, Congress authorized States to require proof that the operator of an interstate truck had secured a Federal Permit. 49 U. S. C. § 302(b)(2) (1976 ed.); see generally Yellow Transp., Inc. v. Michigan, 537 U. S. 36, 39 (2002). By 1991, 39 States demanded such proof by requiring some form of what we shall call State Registration (of the Federal…
Excerpt of a 50,050-character opinion. The full text and citation network load in the interactive viewer above.