Kassel v. Consolidated Freightways Corp.

450 U.S. 662, 101 S.Ct. 1309, 67 L.Ed.2d 580 (1981)

Quick Summary

Consolidated Freightways Corp. (plaintiff) challenged an Iowa law restricting truck length, arguing it burdened interstate commerce. Kassel (defendant) defended the law based on safety concerns. The dispute centered on whether Iowa’s truck-length statute was constitutional under the Commerce Clause.

After a series of legal proceedings, the United States Supreme Court affirmed the lower courts’ decisions, concluding that the law disproportionately burdened interstate commerce relative to any safety benefits it purported to provide and thus violated the Commerce Clause.

Facts of the Case

Consolidated Freightways Corporation of Delaware (plaintiff) is a substantial common carrier operating across 48 states under the authority of the Interstate Commerce Commission. The company’s operations include transporting commodities through Iowa using both traditional semi-trucks and longer twin trucks.

A state law in Iowa restricted most trucks to a maximum length of 55 feet, posing a significant operational challenge to Consolidated, which preferred the use of 65-foot twin trucks for efficiency.

As a result of Iowa’s restrictions, Consolidated faced limited options: use smaller trucks, detach and individually transport trailers, or reroute around Iowa. Unwilling to accept these constraints, Consolidated sued Kassel (defendant), the Iowa state official responsible for enforcing the statute, arguing that the law unconstitutionally burdened interstate commerce.

Procedural Posture and History

  1. Consolidated Freightways filed suit in federal district court against Kassel, challenging the constitutionality of the Iowa truck-length statute.
  2. The district court ruled in favor of Consolidated, finding no safety difference between semi and twin trucks and declared the statute unconstitutional.
  3. The court of appeals affirmed the district court’s decision.
  4. The case was then appealed to the United States Supreme Court, which granted certiorari to review the case.

I.R.A.C. Format


Whether the Iowa statute that restricts the length of trucks on its highways unconstitutionally burdens interstate commerce.

Rule of Law

The Commerce Clause of the United States Constitution prohibits state regulations that impose a substantial burden on interstate commerce, especially when such regulations provide marginal safety benefits compared to the interference with interstate transportation.

Reasoning and Analysis

The Supreme Court balanced Iowa’s asserted safety concerns against the impact on interstate commerce. Evidence presented demonstrated that 65-foot twin trucks were as safe as or safer than shorter trucks permitted by Iowa law, undermining Iowa’s safety justification for the statute.

Furthermore, the record showed that due to Iowa’s unique restrictions, trucking companies incurred significant additional costs and inefficiencies, and the flow of interstate goods was substantially hindered. The Court also considered statutory exemptions that favored local interests and allowed certain oversized trucks within Iowa borders.

This suggested that Iowa’s law was not primarily about safety but aimed at reducing interstate truck traffic through the state. Given the minimal evidence supporting safety claims and the considerable burden on commerce, the Court found that Iowa’s statute could not be reconciled with the Commerce Clause.


The United States Supreme Court affirmed the judgment of the Court of Appeals, holding that the Iowa statute unconstitutionally burdened interstate commerce and therefore violated the Commerce Clause.

Key Takeaways

  1. The Commerce Clause limits state power over interstate commerce, especially when state regulations significantly hinder it without substantial safety justifications.
  2. Iowa’s truck-length restriction was found to impose a greater burden on out-of-state businesses than on in-state interests, indicating a protectionist motive rather than genuine safety concerns.
  3. The Supreme Court will uphold state regulations traditionally concerned with safety unless evidence shows they are an undue burden on interstate commerce.

Relevant FAQs of this case

What constitutes a substantial burden on interstate commerce under the Commerce Clause?

A substantial burden on interstate commerce occurs when a state regulation significantly restricts the flow of trade across state lines, leading to economic inefficiency and increased costs for businesses and consumers.

  • For example: A state law that requires all commercial vehicles to stop and undergo inspection at its borders, leading to delays and increased shipping times, would likely be considered a substantial burden.

How do courts determine if a state safety regulation is pretextual, rather than a necessary safety measure?

Courts look at the actual effects of the regulation, compare them with other similar regulations, and evaluate any discrepancies between the stated safety goals and the practical outcomes. They also examine whether the regulation disproportionately affects interstate businesses over local ones.

  • For example: If a state imposes stringent inspection requirements solely on out-of-state waste transport vehicles but not on similar in-state vehicles, this may suggest a protectionist motive rather than genuine safety concerns.

In what way can differential treatment of local and interstate businesses indicate a violation of the Commerce Clause?

Differential treatment violates the Commerce Clause when it discriminates against interstate commerce by providing benefits or exemptions to local businesses that are not available to out-of-state competitors, creating unfair advantages.

  • For example: A state law that exempts local vineyards from certain distribution restrictions while imposing them on out-of-state wine producers would likely violate the Commerce Clause.


Last updated

Was this case brief helpful?

More Case Briefs in Constitutional Law