Separate names with a comma.
Discussion in 'Midwest/Great Lakes' started by Joel, Sep 22, 2016.
Tesla filed a constitutional challenge this morning in the Western District of Michigan.
It's go time....right in my backyard - pass the popcorn, please.
Do you have a guest room I could use? I may have to attend some of the hearings
Absolutely. I can probably find rooms for many if we need them. Would be nice if something happened this fall - you could take in Art Prize to boot. I will have my legal counsel (wife) review the document and see what she thinks.
What else would you expect from Guberment Motors and the crooked politicians in Michigan?
Hope the whole thing gets kicked up to higher Federal Court.
And then let the Higher Court get the ruling straightened out for Michigan, Texas, Utah, New Mexico, et al.
What Tesla _really_ needs from this is the lifting of the ban on service centers. I think that's a more likely win than forcing a change in law on dealerships.
YES! This news is huge. I am really thrilled Tesla went for it and sued a state in Federal court. GO TESLA!
I have already read that. The clear implication is that the various States auto dealer franchising laws do violate the dormant Commerce clause among other constitutional protections. Frankly, nobody has effectively tried to challenge this until now despite the FTC position being crystal clear. I have read the entire Tesla petition. It is succinct, clear and definitive. I really want to be in the courtroom. Does anybody know when and where this will be? I just might come! This rivals the NTSB lithium batteries in transport hearing for my interest.
This is going all the way to SCOTUS... There is no way either side isn't going to appeal any decision all the way up the ladder... Hopefully SCOTUS follows established case law on this, as already noted in this thread, and strikes down all of this crap nationally...
Of course it is. And now it depends on the last court prior to reaching the Supremes. Or maybe not, I'll wager somebody a modest sum, say, a free Supercharger session (assuming the winner has an S or an X), that there might actually be close to unanimous agreement to block these antiquated State laws. After all it is not possible to argue any permissible benefit with a straight face, and this really is not a conventional partisan issue.
You'll have a tough time finding a taker on this forum.
I can't wait to hear the "legitimate purposes" the Dealers will attempt to advance:
-Youth league sponsorships
What I find absolutely fascinating is the complete disregard for their own future... By "their" I mean the NADA and all of their members... By fighting Tesla the way they have, they're not only going to loose nationally thus opening the door to Tesla entirely but they're also going to be opening the door to allowing Chevy, Ford, etc... to open their own company stores should they choose to do so...
It's so horribly short sighted of them to fight Tesla on this as, in the end, when Tesla eventually wins the decision will also allow for other automakers to do the same thing and there's no reason to think they wouldn't...
Whoever decided to fight Tesla on this is a really short sighted individual(s)...
[QUOTE="Tesla makes some cogent arguments. We'll see. They chose wisely, focussing on the "Midnight Amendment" rather than the whole. /QUOTE]
I really feel that adding the it's to the original law will come to bite them in the butt. It shows clear intent to change the original law to block Tesla.
Speaking of "clear intent," I'm surprised the lawsuit does not mention the fact that the CEO of GM made a snarky public remark about the Model 3 vs its Chevy Bolt (at the UNVEILING of the Bolt, to boot!), saying "Unlike some EV customers, Bolt customers don’t have to drive to another state to buy or service an EV", in other words, ha ha ha isn't it a shame that a poor little Model 3 owner will have to drive somewhere out-of-state to buy and service the car, since Tesla has no stores or service centers in Michigan, poor wittle companee, isn't that too bad, etc. I know Tesla has already brought up this point in various presentations including the famous one to the FTC in January 2016. I suppose since GM isn't a defendant in this case, it was probably decided to save that GM quote for the courtroom...
They already can in many states including the largest auto market of California but have decided not to. A court decision allowing them to elsewhere wouldn't change that.
This was Tesla's plan all along - they applied for the dealership license knowing full well that it would be denied. What it did, though, was give them standing to sue. It is likely to go all the way to the Supreme Court, and a victory would mean that they could sell unimpeded in all 50 states.
Unfortunately, lawsuits of that scale take a long time. It will probably be years before it is definitively decided. It won't be on time for the Model 3 launch.
What you mean, I presume, is that amending the original law to DELETE the word "its" in reference to franchised dealers will bite them in the butt.
Tesla *should* win this case. I believe Tesla will lose, because I believe they have not got lawyers competent to do this.
This is a badly written complaint. I'm not a lawyer, but I'm a bit of a connoisseur of legal documents, and this is not well-written. There's a lot of political grandstanding; unless they get a very particular sort of judge, that won't go over well. There really should be a short section with legal citations for the proposition that it's not constitutional to pass or enforce laws which serve no legitimate public purpose.
(There is a tradition of "deference to the legislature" so it's important to overcome that.)