home
***
CD-ROM
|
disk
|
FTP
|
other
***
search
/
Shareware Overload Trio 2
/
Shareware Overload Trio Volume 2 (Chestnut CD-ROM).ISO
/
dir33
/
cwru_ct.zip
/
91-636.ZS
< prev
next >
Wrap
Text File
|
1993-11-06
|
4KB
|
79 lines
NOTE: Where it is feasible, a syllabus (headnote) will be released, as is
being done in connection with this case, at the time the opinion is issued.
The syllabus constitutes no part of the opinion of the Court but has been
prepared by the Reporter of Decisions for the convenience of the reader.
See United States v. Detroit Lumber Co., 200 U. S. 321, 337.
SUPREME COURT OF THE UNITED STATES
Syllabus
FORT GRATIOT SANITARY LANDFILL, INC. v.
MICHIGAN DEPARTMENT OF NATURAL
RESOURCES
certiorari to the united states court of appeals for
the sixth circuit
No. 91-636. Argued March 30, 1992-Decided June 1, 1992
The Waste Import Restrictions of Michigan's Solid Waste Management
Act (SWMA) provide that solid waste generated in another county,
state, or country cannot be accepted for disposal unless explicitly
authorized in the receiving county's plan. After St. Clair County,
whose plan does not include such authorization, denied petitioner
company's 1989 application for authority to accept out-of-state waste
at its landfill, petitioner filed this action seeking a judgment declar-
ing the Waste Import Restrictions invalid under the Commerce
Clause and enjoining their enforcement. The District Court dis-
missed the complaint, and the Court of Appeals affirmed. The latter
court found no facial discrimination against interstate commerce
because the statute does not treat out-of-county waste from Michigan
any differently than waste from other States. The court also ruled
that there was no actual discrimination because petitioner had not
alleged that all Michigan counties ban out-of-state waste.
Held:The Waste Import Restrictions unambiguously discriminate
against interstate commerce and are appropriately characterized as
protectionist measures that cannot withstand Commerce Clause
scrutiny. Pp.4-14.
(a)Philadelphia v. New Jersey, 437 U.S. 617, 626-627, provides
the proper analytical framework and controls here. Under the
reasoning of that case, Michigan's Waste Import Restrictions clearly
discriminate against interstate commerce, since they authorize each
county to isolate itself from the national economy and, indeed, afford
local waste producers complete protection from competition from out-
of-state producers seeking to use local disposal areas unless a county
acts affirmatively to authorize such use. Pp.4-7.
(b)This case cannot be distinguished from Philadelphia v. New
Jersey on the ground, asserted by respondents, that the Waste Import
Restrictions treat waste from other Michigan counties no differently
than waste from other States and thus do not discriminate against
interstate commerce on their face or in effect. This Court's cases
teach that a State (or one of its political subdivisions) may not avoid
the Commerce Clause's strictures by curtailing the movement of
articles of commerce through subdivisions of the State, rather than
through the State itself. See, e. g., Brimmer v. Rebman, 138 U.S.
78, 82-83. Nor does the fact that the Michigan statute allows
individual counties to accept solid waste from out of state qualify its
discriminatory character. Pp.7-9.
(c)Also rejected is respondents' argument that this case is different
from Philadelphia v. New Jersey because the SWMA constitutes a
comprehensive health and safety regulation rather than ``economic
protectionism'' of the State's limited landfill capacity. Even assuming
that other provisions of the SWMA could fairly be so characterized,
the same assumption cannot be made with respect to the Waste
Import Restrictions themselves. Because those provisions unambigu-
ously discriminate against interstate commerce, the State bears the
burden of proving that they further health and safety concerns that
cannot be adequately served by nondiscriminatory alternatives.
Respondents have not met this burden, since they have provided no
valid health and safety reason for limiting the amount of waste that
a landfill operator may accept from outside the State, but not the
amount the operator may accept from inside the State. Pp.10-14.
931 F.2d 413, reversed.
Stevens, J., delivered the opinion of the Court, in which White,
O'Connor, Scalia, Kennedy, Souter, and Thomas, JJ., joined.
Rehnquist, C. J., filed a dissenting opinion, in which Blackmun, J.,
joined.