New York, Petitioner, v. United States et al.; County of Allegany, New York, Petitioner, v. United States; County of Cortland, New York, Petitioner, v. United States et al.
The "take title" provision of the Low-Level Radioactive Waste Policy Amendments Act violates the Tenth Amendment and exceeds Congress's power under the Commerce Clause.
The Low-Level Radioactive Waste Policy Amendments Act was an attempt to imbue a negotiated agreement of states with federal incentives for compliance. The problem of what to do with radioactive waste was a national issue complicated by thepolitical reluctance of the states to deal with the problem individually. New York was a willing participant in the compromise. After the act was passed, it announced locations in the counties ofAllegany andCortland, as potential places for waste storage. Public opposition in both counties was immediate and very determined and eventually helped motivate New York to challenge the law.[3]
The act provided three incentives for states to comply with the agreement. The first incentive, the "monetary" incentive, allowed states to collect gradually increasing surcharges for waste that was received from other states. TheSecretary of Energy would then collect a portion of the income and redistribute it to reward states that achieved a series of milestones in waste disposal. The second incentive, the "access" incentive, allowed states to reprimand other states that missed certain deadlines by raising surcharges or eventually denying access to disposal at their facilities completely. The third incentive, the "take title" incentive, required states to "take title" and assume liability for waste generated within their borders if they failed to comply.
JusticeO'Connor wrote the opinion of the court. The court held the first two incentives constitutional and the third unconstitutional. The "monetary" incentive was held to be within Congress's power under theTaxing and Spending Clause. The "access" incentive was also held to be within Congress's power under theCommerce Clause. The "take title" incentive, however, was held to be impermissibly coercive and a threat to state sovereignty, thereby violating theTenth Amendment.
Justice O'Connor first affirmed the constitutionality of the first two incentives. She then characterized the "take title" incentive as an attempt tocommandeer the state governments by directly compelling them to participate in the federal regulatory program. The federal government was described as having "crossed the line distinguishing encouragement from coercion." The distinction was that with respect to the "take title" provision, states had to choose between conforming to federal regulations or taking title to the waste. Since Congress cannot directly force states to legislate according to their scheme, and since Congress likewise cannot force them to take title to radioactive waste, O'Connor reasoned that Congress likewise could not force States to choose between the two impermissible alternatives. She argued that such coercion would be counter to the federalist structure of government, in which a "core of state sovereignty" is enshrined in the Tenth Amendment.
The court found the "take title" provision to be severable and, noting the seriousness of the "pressing national problem" being addressed, allowed the remainder of the act to survive.
JusticeWhite wrote a dissenting opinion that was joined by JusticesBlackmun andStevens. White stressed that the act was a product of "cooperative federalism," as the states "bargained among themselves to achieve compromises for Congress to sanction." Noting that Congress can directly regulate radioactive waste, as opposed to "compelling state legislatures" to regulate according to their scheme, he said that the "ultimate irony of the decision today is that in its formalistically rigid obeisance to 'federalism,' the Court gives Congress fewer incentives to defer to the wishes of state officials in achieving local solutions to local problems."
