Mid-Con Freight Systems, Inc. v. Michigan Pub. Serv. Comm'n

Media Items
Mid-Con Freight Systems, Inc. v. Michigan Pub. Serv. Comm'n - Oral Argument
Mid-Con Freight Systems, Inc. v. Michigan Pub. Serv. Comm'n - Opinion Announcement
Get Adobe Flash Player
Advocates
Henry J. Boynton (argued the cause for Respondents)
Malcolm L. Stewart (argued the cause for Respondents)
James H. Hanson (argued the cause for Petitioners in 03-1234)
Robert Digges, Jr. (argued the cause for Petitioners in 03-1230)
Case Basics
Docket No.: 
03-1234
Petitioner: 
Mid-Con Freight Systems, Inc., et al.
Respondent: 
Michigan Public Service Commission, et al.
Consolidation: 
American Trucking Assns., Inc. v. Michigan Pub. Serv. Comm'n, No. 03-1230
Opinion: 
545 U.S. ___ (2005)

Cite this page
The Oyez Project, Mid-Con Freight Systems, Inc. v. Michigan Pub. Serv. Comm'n , 545 U.S. ___ (2005)
available at: (http://oyez.org/cases/2000-2009/2004/2004_03_1234)
Facts of the Case: 

A Michigan law imposed an annual $100 fee on each Michigan license-plated truck that operated entirely in interstate commerce. A group of interstate trucking companies sought unsuccesfully to have Michigan courts invalidate the law. The companies claimed that the federal law that had created the Single State Registration System (SSRS) preempted and prohibited such state fees. Under the federal law a trucking company could obtain a permit applicable in every state by registering once in a single state. While the initial state could demand a fee equal to the sum of its individual state fee, the law prohibited a state from imposing an additional "state registration requirement."

Question: 

Did federal law establishing for trucks the Single State Registration System (SSRS) preempt a separate Michigan registration fee?

Conclusion: 

No. In a 6-3 opinion delivered by Justice Stephen Breyer, the Court held that "reference to text, historical context, and purpose" proved that the words "state registration requirement" in the federal law applied only to state requirements concerning SSRS registration. The Michigan statute, the majority reasoned, had nothing to do with SSRS.

Decisions

Decision: 6 votes for Michigan Pub. Serv. Comm'n, 3 vote(s) against
Legal provision: 49 U.S.C. 14504

Sort by Ideology

Voted with the minority, joined Kennedy's dissent
Rehnquist
Voted with the majority
Stevens
Voted with the minority, joined Kennedy's dissent
O'Connor
Voted with the majority
Scalia
Wrote a dissent
Kennedy
Voted with the majority
Souter
Voted with the majority
Thomas
Voted with the majority
Ginsburg
Wrote the majority opinion
Breyer

Full Opinion by Justice Stephen G. Breyer