Opinion ID: 4537136
Heading Depth: 2
Heading Rank: 3

Heading: Minimum Wage Claim

Text: In his original complaint, Weisshaus asserted that the post-2011 toll rate exceeds the minimum wage guideline of what a person under such income conditions can afford . . . . Thus, these tolls are targeted to restrict minimum wage earners the right to travel. Our prior panel affirmed the dismissal of Weisshaus's right-to-travel claim, stating that travelers do not have a constitutional right to the most convenient form of travel, and minor restrictions on travel simply do not amount to the denial of a fundamental right. Weisshaus, 497 F. App’x at 104 (internal quotation marks omitted). In his amended complaint, Weisshaus made essentially the same allegation that the toll was prohibitively expensive for a minimum wage earner, but instead presented it as the foundation of a dormant Commerce Clause claim. He asserted that the toll rate's chilling effect on travel for prospective minimum wage earners discriminated against interstate commerce. An independent review of the record and relevant case law reveals that the district court properly held that this claim fares no better when pursued under the Commerce Clause.