Opinion ID: 4537136
Heading Depth: 2
Heading Rank: 1

Heading: Other Dormant Commerce Clause Claims

Text: Weisshaus argues that the Port Authority's cash toll surcharge violates the dormant Commerce Clause because it penalize[es] drivers for not having E-ZPass. Appellant's Br. at 49. He contends that the district court erred when it considered the benefits that E-ZPass confers on all drivers -- that is, better traffic flow -- because the court stepped outside the four corners of the complaint[] to make such a finding. Appellant's Br. at 51. We disagree. Weisshaus attached a Port Authority press release to his amended complaint, which explained the Port Authority's reason for discounting -7- the toll price for E-ZPass users: to decrease traffic congestion. In nearly a decade of litigation, Weisshaus has never contended that this benefit was inauthentic, nor does he do so on appeal. Accordingly, the district court appropriately relied on the documents incorporated into Weisshaus's amended complaint, and it did not err when it dismissed his cash toll surcharge claim. Similarly, we affirm the district court's dismissal of Weisshaus's future projects claim, also raised under the dormant Commerce Clause. There, he argues that the Port Authority cannot raise toll prices to fundraise revenues for future facilities, years in advance because it may never deliver a benefit to those paying the increased rate. Appellant's Br. at 54. When determining whether a fee charged by a government entity violates the Commerce Clause, we consider whether the fee confer[s] an actual or potential benefit on those who pay. See Bridgeport & Port Jefferson Steamboat Co. v. Bridgeport Port Auth., 567 F.3d 79, 87 (2d Cir. 2009) (emphasis added). A fee is permissible if it supports a project with at least a functional relationship to facilities used by the fee payers. Id. (internal quotation marks omitted). Here, the Port Authority plans to use the funds to maintain and modernize the bridges and tunnels of the ITN, Appellee's Br. at 23, which satisfies the functional relationship requirement, see Bridgeport, 567 F.3d at 87. Accordingly, the district court did not err in dismissing Weisshaus's future projects claim. -8-