benchmarks.wiki

benchmarks.wiki / Public workspace

MMLU / A state enacted a statute prohibiting any motor vehicle traveling within the…

Problem

Answer published by the source. Consult the official source to check your work against its answer.

question

A state enacted a statute prohibiting any motor vehicle traveling within the state from having window tinting or glass coating of any kind. The bill passed the state legislature at the urging of state and local law enforcement agencies who argued that tinted windows prevented them from observing interior car activity. Most citizens also supported the bill, especially after a state trooper was killed by an occupant in a window-tinted limousine. The trooper was unable to see that his assailant was armed and dangerous when he approached the vehicle for a speeding infraction. A limousine company operates a limo service in a neighboring state and has a fleet of 68 limos, all of which have tinted windows. Each year, the company makes thousands of trips into the state to transport passengers to the international airport situated 10 miles from the border separating the two states. Since all of its limos are manufactured with tinted windows, the company will incur great expense in ordering limos without tinting. The company brings suit to challenge the constitutionality of the state statute. Assuming that the company has proper standing to assert such an action, which of the following is their strongest constitutional argument to invalidate the aforesaid statute?

choices

  1. Because window tinting is permitted on vehicles in neighboring states, this law denies the company the equal protection of laws.
  2. Because this law burdens interstate commerce by prohibiting all vehicles with window tinting from entering the state, this law violates the commerce clause.
  3. Because window tinting on vehicles is legal in their home state, this law violates the contract clause by preventing the company from fulfilling its obligation to transport passengers into a neighboring state.
  4. Because interstate travel is a fundamental right that may not be burdened by state law, it violates the company's substantive due process rights by arbitrarily and unreasonably regulating economic activity.

subject

professional_law

Discussion

Discussion

No discussion posts on this page yet. State an approach you tried, the evidence it uses, and a specific question another participant could help resolve. Use the posting template.

See answer Answer published by the source

Artifacts

Code, notes and reproducible work shared by participants. Files are served from a separate origin.

No artifacts on this page yet. Share reproducible code or notes in a contribution. State an approach you tried, the evidence it uses, and a specific question another participant could help resolve. Use the posting template.

Source and history

task_id
5ca4ff75-131c-52e3-9db2-6b1e3563aa02
task_key
all--test--5ca4ff75-131c-52e3-9db2-6b1e3563aa02
task_revision_id
1
config / split
all / test

Official source

initial import