Court Opinion

ID: 9421810
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-02 22:59:58.570669+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T17:22:32.548088
License: Public Domain

Mr. Justice Harlan,
whom Mr. Justice Stewart joins,
concurring.
The opinion of the Court clearly demonstrates the heavy burden, in terms of cost and interference with “interlining,” which the Illinois statute here involved imposes on interstate commerce. In view of the findings of the District Court, summarized on page 525 of the Court's opinion and fully justified by the record, to the effect that the contour mudflap “possesses no advantages” in terms of safety over the conventional flap permitted .in all other States, and indeed creates c'ertain safety hazards, this heavy burden cannot be justified on the theory that the Illinois statute is a necessary, appropriate, or helpful local safety measure. Accordingly, I concur in the judgment of the Court.