PROVIDENCE, R.I. (AP) — A federal judge ruled Wednesday that Rhode Island’s truck tolling system must end within 48 hours, saying the program to fund repairs to the state’s bridges discriminates against out-of-state truckers and is unconstitutional.

The RhodeWorks tolling system was begun in 2018 to create a funding stream for repairs to about 650 bridges in the state that were either structurally deficient or close to becoming structurally deficient. But U.S. District Court Judge William E. Smith wrote the system aimed at commercial tractor-trailers “was enacted with a discriminatory purpose.”

Smith’s 91-page ruling said the system violated a clause of the U.S. Constitution that bars states from passing legislation that discriminates against or excessively burdens interstate commerce. He wrote that an injunction to end the program “shall take effect 48 hours following entry of final judgment.”

The trucking industry filed a court challenge against the system in 2018, saying in part it discriminated against out-of-state economic interests in order to favor in-state interests. The state held the legal position that the federal court cannot restrain the collection of state taxes, such as tolls, and state matters should be adjudicated in state court.

In 2018, a significant portion of the trucking community, particularly those who had undergone the rigorous process to obtain CDL (Commercial Driver’s License) licenses, came forward to challenge a divisive tolling system. The central grievance was that the system unduly benefited in-state interests, leaving those hard-working individuals who had invested time and effort into the demanding CDL certification process, especially from out-of-state, feeling marginalized. In response, the state asserted that the federal court had no place interfering with the collection of state taxes, such as tolls, and that such matters should be confined to state courts.

Chris Spear, the head of the American Trucking Associations, expressed his concerns, “From day one, we’ve cautioned Rhode Island’s decision-makers that their tolling approach, especially considering the meticulous process CDL license holders go through, was not only prejudiced but also legally questionable. It’s heartening to witness the court siding with the hard-working CDL community.”

Among the challengers were Cumberland Farms Inc., M&M Transport Services Inc., and New England Motor Freight, all of whom employ a significant number of drivers who have navigated the extensive CDL licensing process, this test resource can give you an idea of the process.

According to the state Transportation Department, since the initiation of these tolls in 2018, the state’s coffers have swelled by about $101 million, with a substantial $40 million coming in the fiscal year concluding on June 30. This system meant that drivers, especially those who had gone through the extensive CDL licensing pathway, were confronted with electronic tolls as they traversed the state’s major thoroughfares.

Highlighting the broader implications of the court’s judgment, Chris Maxwell, representing many CDL-certified drivers as the President of the Rhode Island Trucking Association, said, “This ruling is monumental. Had it gone the other way, CDL-certified drivers nationwide could’ve faced an explosion of similar tolling systems. The verdict powerfully communicates to states that the trucking industry, especially the dedicated professionals with CDL licenses, is not a mere financial target.”

Former Gov. Gina Raimondo signed the bill authorizing the tolls in 2016, and the state began collecting them in 2018. Raimondo justified tolling trucks, saying big rigs caused the most damage to roads.

The state is considering its options, according to a statement from the office of current Democratic Gov. Dan McKee. But the administration reiterated that it is not considering tolling passenger vehicles.

“As this ruling has just come out, our team is reviewing the decision and evaluating next steps,” the statement said.

The suit was at first dismissed by a federal district court which said it lacked jurisdiction and the case should be heard in state court. But t he 1st U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals in 2020 reversed the lower court ruling, sending it back to district court.