Can courts find that Congress authorized states to impose burdens on interstate commerce that would otherwise violate the dormant Commerce Clause on the basis of authorization implied by congressional silence?

QUESTIONS PRESENTED Petitioners allege that the Pennsylvania Turnpike imposes excessive and burdensome tolls in violation of the dormant Commerce Clause. The Third Circuit found that Congress expressed “unmistakably clear” intent to authorize states to impose unlimited tolls that would otherwise violate the dormant Commerce Clause in 23 U.S.C. § 129(a)(3)—a section that addresses how toll receipts may be spent, but which is silent as to the amount of tolls a state may impose and collect. The Third Circuit’s decision diverged from decisions of the First, Second, Fourth, Fifth, and Ninth Circuits on this issue. 1. Can courts find that Congress authorized states to impose burdens on interstate commerce that would otherwise violate the dormant Commerce Clause on the basis of authorization implied by congressional silence? Petitioners allege that the Pennsylvania Turnpike’s excessive tolls violate their right to travel under Airport Authority District v. Delta Airlines, Inc., 405 U.S. 707 (1972), and argue that the Third Circuit incorrectly applied the “actual deterrence” standard introduced in Attorney General of New York v. Soto-Lopez, 476 U.S. 898 (1986) (plurality opinion). 2. Did the Third Circuit err when it joined the D.C. and Ninth Circuits and split with the Sixth and Eighth Circuits in holding that a ii QUESTIONS PRESENTED—Continued state law’s actual deterrence of travel is a necessary element of a claim under the constitutional right to travel, even when the claim is brought under the test set forth in Evansville challenging excessive user fees?