112 S. Ct. 2009; 119L. Ed. 2d 121; 60 U.S.L.W. 4433; 34 ERC 1721; 22 Envtl. L. Rep. 20,909
Case history
Prior
Hunt v. Chemical Waste Mgmt., Inc. 584So.2d 1367 (Ala. 1991)
Holding
No state may attempt to isolate itself from a problem common to the several States by raising barriers to the free flow of interstate trade; a fee on the importation of out-of-state waste constitutes a barrier to interstate trade. Supreme Court of Alabama reversed and case remanded with instructions.
The state law was found to discriminate against out-of-state commerce.Justice White explained that "Nostate may attempt to isolate itself from a problem common to the several States by raising barriers to the free flow of interstatetrade," relying onPhiladelphia v. New Jersey (1978) as precedent.
The Court suggested two less-discriminatory alternatives to the fee on out-of-state hazardous waste:
A generally-applicable, additional fee per ton ofall hazardous waste disposed of within Alabama, regardless of its source.
A per-mile tax on all vehicles transporting hazardous waste across Alabama roads.
Chief Justice Rehnquist dissented arguing that States may wish to avoid the risks topublic health andenvironment by regulating the disposal of hazardous waste. He continued to say that since taxes are a recognized and effective means for discouraging the consumption of scarce commodities, which he in this case had deemed the environment. Then there was nothing unconstitutional or discriminatory about the state ofAlabama's taxes.
O'Leary, Rosemary (1997). "Trash Talk: The Supreme Court and the Interstate Transportation of Waste".Public Administration Review.57 (4). American Society for Public Administration:281–284.doi:10.2307/977308.JSTOR977308.
