August 6th, 2025
Federal Court Declares Rh…

The Commerce Clause of the U.S. Constitution prohibits states from enacting laws that favor in-state commerce at the expense of interstate commerce. In practice, this means states cannot implement protectionist policies designed to benefit local businesses over out-of-state competitors.

That principle was at the center of a recent case in Rhode Island, where a federal court struck down a tolling scheme that disproportionately affected out-of-state trucking companies.

The RhodeWorks Tolling Program

In 2016, Rhode Island passed the RhodeWorks law to fund the repair and construction of bridges across the state. The law imposed tolls exclusively on large commercial vehicles, while exempting “single-unit trucks.” Tolls were charged each time a truck crossed one of 13 specific bridges, with daily and per-bridge caps on the total toll amounts.

Several transportation associations challenged the law, arguing it unfairly targeted interstate trucking companies in violation of the Commerce Clause.

Legal Standards and Court Rulings

Under the Constitution, a toll may be lawful if:

  1. It is a fair approximation of a vehicle’s use of the facility, and
  2. It does not discriminate against interstate commerce.

The trial court found RhodeWorks unconstitutional in its entirety, reasoning that the structure of the toll caps and the exclusion of smaller trucks were intended to shift the financial burden onto out-of-state drivers. The court viewed this as discriminatory against interstate commerce.

Rhode Island appealed. The appellate court agreed in part. It held that while the toll cap structure was unconstitutional because it favored local drivers, the law’s targeting of large commercial vehicles alone was not inherently discriminatory.

Competing Markets and the Single-Unit Truck Exemption

Plaintiffs also argued that the exemption for single-unit trucks favored local businesses, as intrastate carriers are more likely to use these vehicles than their interstate counterparts. Both the trial and appellate courts rejected this claim, finding that single-unit trucks and tractor-trailers do not compete in the same market. There was no evidence that in-state companies were switching vehicles to avoid tolls.

The trial court nonetheless struck down the entire statute, reasoning that the toll structure discriminated against tractor-trailers as a class. The appellate court disagreed, holding that since the two types of vehicles do not compete, treating them differently was not unconstitutional.

A Tolling Structure That Favors Local Drivers

While tolls based on mileage are generally permissible—even if they affect interstate drivers more due to longer distances—Rhode Island’s tolling structure introduced a daily cap that unfairly favored local routes. For instance:

  • A truck that traveled 100 miles by repeatedly crossing one tolled bridge would be tolled only twice (once in each direction).
  • A truck that drove the same distance of 100 miles but crossed each of the 13 tolled bridges once would incur 13 separate tolls.

Both courts found this system disproportionately burdened out-of-state carriers and declared it unconstitutional.

Severability and the Path Forward

The RhodeWorks law included a severability clause, allowing courts to strike down portions of the law without invalidating it entirely. The appellate court invoked that clause, blocking enforcement of the toll cap provisions while allowing tolls to continue on large commercial vehicles.

Looking Ahead

States across the country face growing infrastructure needs and limited transportation budgets. As lawmakers continue searching for creative ways to generate revenue, they must ensure that any funding mechanisms comply with constitutional protections for interstate commerce. The RhodeWorks case serves as a reminder that even well-intentioned programs can run afoul of the Constitution if they place an undue burden on out-of-state businesses.

If you have questions about this article, please contact Todd Knode (tknode@setlifflaw.com) at (804) 377-1277 or Steve Setliff (ssetliff@setlifflaw.com) at (804) 377-1261.