This educational guide is based on the linked primary sources. It is not a Court publication, is not affiliated with the Court, and is not legal advice.
In brief
Overview
According to Robert Digges, Jr., according to Robert Digges, Jr., according to Robert Digges, Jr., the case challenges Michigan’s $100 per‑truck flat annual fee imposed on trucks registered for point‑to‑point operations in Michigan.
According to Robert Digges, Jr., according to Robert Digges, Jr., according to Robert Digges, Jr., petitioners argue that the fee has the same impermissible effects on interstate commerce as the flat truck fees struck down in American Trucking Associations v. Scheiner.
According to James H. Hanson, the dispute centers on whether the fee is preempted by 49 U.S.C. § 14504.
According to Justice Souter, justices asked whether the fee deters trucking and how many trucks it affects.
According to Justice Stevens, justices inquired about alternative fee structures, such as a $90 plating fee plus a $10 registration fee.
According to Justice Souter, justices questioned whether a $20 fee versus $10 would change the analysis.
According to Justice O'Connor, justices asked if apportionment based on intrastate mileage is difficult.
Justice Scalia asked whether a fee applied per vehicle (e.g., nine trucks at $100 each) is permissible.
Justice Stevens asked whether a $10 fee combined with a reduced $90 plating fee would be permissible.
- [1] 515c884e15fbbf2b4114-r1-8e8999892c840aa5.pdf, p. 4
- [2] 515c884e15fbbf2b4114-r1-8e8999892c840aa5.pdf, p. 4
- [3] 515c884e15fbbf2b4114-r1-8e8999892c840aa5.pdf, p. 14
- [4] 515c884e15fbbf2b4114-r1-8e8999892c840aa5.pdf, p. 5
- [5] 515c884e15fbbf2b4114-r1-8e8999892c840aa5.pdf, p. 20
- [6] 515c884e15fbbf2b4114-r1-8e8999892c840aa5.pdf, p. 21
- [7] 515c884e15fbbf2b4114-r1-8e8999892c840aa5.pdf, p. 26
- [8] 515c884e15fbbf2b4114-r1-8e8999892c840aa5.pdf, p. 41
- [9] 515c884e15fbbf2b4114-r1-8e8999892c840aa5.pdf, p. 52
Background and question before the Court
According to James H. Hanson, the legal question is whether Michigan’s flat per‑truck fee is preempted by 49 U.S.C. § 14504 because it burdens interstate commerce.
According to Justice Stevens, another question is whether the fee can be structured as a $90 plating fee plus a $10 registration fee without violating the statute.
According to Justice O'Connor, the Court also considered whether apportionment of the fee based on intrastate mileage is permissible.
According to Justice Scalia, the issue of whether a per‑vehicle fee applied regardless of usage is permissible was raised.
What each side argues
Petitioners (American Trucking Associations, Inc., USF Holland, Inc., and Mid‑Con Freight Systems, Inc.)
According to Robert Digges, Jr., according to Robert Digges, Jr., according to Robert Digges, Jr., petitioners contend that the $100 flat fee has the same impermissible effects on interstate commerce as the fees struck down in Scheiner.
According to James H. Hanson, petitioners argue that the fee is preempted by 49 U.S.C. § 14504.
According to Mr. Hanson, petitioners assert that a $90 plating fee plus a $10 registration fee would be permissible because the registration fee is part of the interstate qualification process.
According to Mr. Hanson, petitioners maintain that even a $20 fee with $80 toward IRP would still violate the SSRS if part of the registration process.
According to Mr. Boynton, petitioners claim the intrastate fee places significant burdens on interstate commerce and that the Michigan Court of Appeals rejected this claim as speculation.
According to Mr. Digges, petitioners state that apportionment should reflect the taxpayer’s activity in the state, not highway damage, and is a general revenue tax.
According to Mr. Digges, petitioners note that out‑of‑state carriers would be disadvantaged by cumulative fees across states, leading to a balkanized commerce.
- [1] 515c884e15fbbf2b4114-r1-8e8999892c840aa5.pdf, p. 4
- [2] 515c884e15fbbf2b4114-r1-8e8999892c840aa5.pdf, p. 14
- [3] 515c884e15fbbf2b4114-r1-8e8999892c840aa5.pdf, p. 20
- [4] 515c884e15fbbf2b4114-r1-8e8999892c840aa5.pdf, p. 21
- [5] 515c884e15fbbf2b4114-r1-8e8999892c840aa5.pdf, p. 24
- [6] 515c884e15fbbf2b4114-r1-8e8999892c840aa5.pdf, p. 55
- [7] 515c884e15fbbf2b4114-r1-8e8999892c840aa5.pdf, p. 57
Respondent (Michigan Public Service Commission)
Source-limited. The record does not yet support a complete account.
What happened at oral argument
Justice Souter asked whether the fee deters trucking and how many trucks it affects.
Justice Stevens asked about a $90 plating fee plus a $10 registration fee.
Justice Souter asked about a $20 fee versus a $10 fee scenario.
Justice O'Connor asked whether apportionment based on intrastate miles is difficult.
Justice Scalia asked whether a per‑vehicle fee (e.g., nine trucks at $100 each) is permissible.
Justice Stevens asked whether a $10 fee combined with a reduced $90 plating fee would be permissible.
- [1] 515c884e15fbbf2b4114-r1-8e8999892c840aa5.pdf, p. 5
- [2] 515c884e15fbbf2b4114-r1-8e8999892c840aa5.pdf, p. 20
- [3] 515c884e15fbbf2b4114-r1-8e8999892c840aa5.pdf, p. 21
- [4] 515c884e15fbbf2b4114-r1-8e8999892c840aa5.pdf, p. 26
- [5] 515c884e15fbbf2b4114-r1-8e8999892c840aa5.pdf, p. 41
- [6] 515c884e15fbbf2b4114-r1-8e8999892c840aa5.pdf, p. 52
What the Court decided
Why it matters
According to Mr. Digges, the fee could impose a cumulative burden on out‑of‑state carriers, potentially balkanizing commerce.
According to James H. Hanson, the case raises the question of whether the fee is preempted by 49 U.S.C. § 14504.
Terms to know
No glossary terms are available for this guide.
Primary sources
Read the source materials on the official site or open the immutable repository copy used for this guide.
- 515c884e15fbbf2b4114-r1-8e8999892c840aa5.pdforal argument transcript
Guide generated September 20, 2026. Automated validation accepted this version.