Earl Warren

“ The effect of the law is to authorize a private individual, for his own financial interest, to determine whether and when a bankrupt may drive on the State's highways. In departing from its legitimate interest in promoting highway safety and thus substituting the interests of individual creditors, the State brings its law into direct conflict with the policy of the federal statute which is designed to relieve bankrupt debtors from their prior financial obligations. ”

“ When to convene a three-judge court has always been a troublesome problem of federal jurisdiction and a review of the cases involving that question illustrates the difficulties the lower federal courts have had in applying the principles formulated by this Court. [3] However, one rule has been clear: where a state statute is attacked as violating directly some provision of the Federal Constitution, a three-judge court must be convened. ”

“ Justice FRANKFURTER'S opinion for the Court. State drivers' financial-responsibility laws intended to discourage careless driving and to promote safety in automobile traffic for the protection of its citizens are essential to the State's well-being and wide latitude should be allowed in the formulation of such laws. ”

“ The State is in effect saying that it does not have an interest in preventing drivers who have been unable to meet their financial obligations from using the highways-as far as the State is concerned some may and others may not. The choice is delegated to the creditors. Hence, creditor X may have two outstanding judgments owing from two different individuals who have caused him damage in a highway accident. ”

“ United States, 312 U.S. 246, 250, 61 S.Ct. 480, 483, 85 L.Ed. 800.↑ See note 13, infra.↑ A great portion of the Court's opinion is devoted to a review of the purpose and intent of state-highway financial-responsibility laws. In addition, the Court considers, as it must, the scope of § 17 of the Bankruptcy Act. See ante, 369 U.S., pp. 169-171, 82 S.Ct., pp. 817-818. The Court concludes that there are 'overlapping interests' between the two pieces of legislation that need resolution. ”

“ The lower federal courts have also been unanimous in so holding. E.g., Bell v. Waterfront Commission, D.C., 279 F.2d 853; Penagaricano v. Allen Corp., 1 Cir., 267 F.2d 550; Cloverleaf Butter Co. v. Patterson, 5 Cir., 116 F.2d 227, rev'd on other grounds, 315 U.S. 148, 62 S.Ct. 491, 86 L.Ed. 754 ”