United Haulers Assn. v. Oneida-Herkimer Solid Waste Mgmt. Auth.


United Haulers Assn. v. Oneida-Herkimer Solid Waste Mgmt. Auth.

SCOTUSCase
Litigants=United Haulers Assn., Inc. v. Oneida-Herkimer Solid Waste Mgmt. Auth.
ArgueDate=January 9
ArgueYear=2007
DecideDate=April 30
DecideYear=2007
FullName=United Haulers Assn., Inc. v. Oneida-Herkimer Solid Waste Mgmt. Auth.
CitationNew=
Docket=
USVol=550
USPage=
Prior=
Subsequent=
Holding=United States Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit affirmed.
SCOTUS=2007
Majority=Roberts
JoinMajority=Souter, Ginsberg, Breyer
Concurrence=Scalia
Concurrence2=Thomas
JoinConcurrence2=
Dissent=Alito
JoinDissent=Stevens, Kennedy
LawsApplied=Dormant Commerce Clause

"United Haulers Assn., Inc. v. Oneida-Herkimer Solid Waste Mgmt. Auth.", 550 U.S. ___ (2007), was a United States Supreme Court case about interstate commerce. Chief Justice John Roberts wrote the opinion of the Court, holding that a New York state ordinance forcing private waste management companies to deliver waste to a public facility did not discriminate against interstate commerce. Justice Samuel Alito wrote a dissent.

Facts

The plaintiff, United Haulers, a not-for-profit corporation made up of waste management companies, sued the New York counties of Oneida and Herkimer, which controlled the Oneida-Herkimer Solid Waste Management Authority, under 42 U.S.C. § 1983. United Haulers claimed that county ordinances requiring all solid wastes and recyclables generated within the two counties to be delivered to one of several waste processing facilities owned by the Authority violated the Dormant Commerce Clause.

Procedural history

The district court ruled in favor of United Haulers, based on the Supreme Court's holding in "Carbone v. Clarkstown." The Second Circuit Court of Appeals reversed, reasoning that the public benefit outweighed any restriction on interstate commerce. United Haulers appealed, and the Supreme Court granted "certiorari."

Decision

Issue

Does an ordinance requiring delivery of all solid waste to a publicly owned local facility impose a substantial burden on interstate commerce and therefore violate the Commerce Clause?

Opinion of the Court

Chief Justice Roberts, writing for the Court, held that the law did not violate the dormant commerce clause.

In "Carbone v. Clarkstown," [511 U. S. 383 (1994)] the Court struck down a similar flow control ordinance that forced haulers to deliver waste to a private processing facility. Here, the Court held that because the facilities were owned and operated by a state-created public benefit corporation, the restriction was permissible. "Disposing of trash," Roebrts wrote, "has been a traditional government activity for years, and laws that favor the government in such areas— but treat every private business, whether in-state or out-of-state, exactly the same—do not discriminate against interstate commerce for purposes of the Commerce Clause." The Court applied the balancing test from "Pike v. Bruce Church" [397 U. S. 137 (1970)] to determine that the local benefits outweigh the interstate commerce concerns.

calia's Concurrence

Justice Scalia agreed with the Court's holding, and wrote separately to restate his opinion that "the so-called 'negative' Commerce Clause is an unjustified judicial invention, not to be expanded beyond its existing domain." Scalia also objected to the use of the "Pike" test.

Thomas's Concurrence

Justice Thomas agreed with the Court's holding, and wrote separately to refute his earlier Commerce Clause opinion in "Carbone," stating that "the negative Commerce Clause has no basis in the Constitution and has proved unworkable in practice."

Dissent

Justice Alito, joined by Justices Stevens and Kennedy, dissented from the Court's holding, stating that the facts in this case did not differ enough from those in "Carbone" to justify the opposite result.

External links

* [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dormant_Commerce_Clause#Oneida-Herkeimer Dormant Commerce Clause]
* [http://www.supremecourtus.gov/opinions/06pdf/05-1345.pdf Slip opinion at SupremeCourtUs.gov] (docket information)
* [http://www.law.cornell.edu/supct/html/05-1345.ZS.html full text] (HTML with links to precedent, statutes, and U.S. Constitution)

Notes


Wikimedia Foundation. 2010.

Look at other dictionaries:

  • Dormant Commerce Clause — The Dormant Commerce Clause, also known as the Negative Commerce Clause, is a legal doctrine that courts in the United States have inferred from the Commerce Clause in Article I of the United States Constitution. The Commerce Clause expressly… …   Wikipedia

  • Clarence Thomas — Associate Justice of the Supreme Court of the United …   Wikipedia


Share the article and excerpts

Direct link
Do a right-click on the link above
and select “Copy Link”

We are using cookies for the best presentation of our site. Continuing to use this site, you agree with this.