New York v. United States

Media Items
New York v. United States - Oral Argument
Get Adobe Flash Player
New York v. United States - Opinion Announcement
Get Adobe Flash Player
Advocates
William B. Collins (Argued the cause for the state respondents)
Peter H. Schiff (Argued the cause for the petitioners in all cases)
Lawrence G. Wallace (Argued the cause for the federal respondents in all cases)
Case Basics
Docket No.: 
91-543
Petitioner: 
New York
Respondent: 
United States
Consolidation: 
No. 91-558
No. 91-563
Opinion: 
505 U.S. 144 (1992)
Location No location information present.

Cite this page
The Oyez Project, New York v. United States , 505 U.S. 144 (1992)
available at: (http://oyez.org/cases/1990-1999/1991/1991_91_543)
Facts of the Case: 

The Low-Level Radioactive Waste Management Act Amendments of 1985 required states alone or in compacts with other states to dispose of such radioactive waste within their borders. New York State and Allegany and Courtland counties were frustrated in their compliance efforts by resistance from residents to proposed radioactive waste sites and a lack of cooperation from neighboring states. New York filed suit against the federal government, questioning the authority of Congress to regulate state waste management.

Question: 

Does the Low-Level Waste Act violate the Tenth Amendment and the "guarantee clause" of Article Four?

Conclusion: 

In a 6-3 decision, the Court upheld two of the three provisions of the Act under review, reasoning that Congress had the authority under the Commerce Clause to use financial rewards and access to disposal sites as incentives for state waste management. The third provision, the "take-title" qualification, stipulated that states must take legal ownership and liability for low-level waste or by the regulatory act. "Either type of federal action," wrote Justice Sandra Day O'Connor, "would 'commandeer' state governments into the service of federal regulatory purposes, and would for this reason be inconsistent with the Constitution's division of authority between federal and state governments." This last provision violated the Tenth Amendment.

Decisions

Decision: 6 votes for New York, 3 vote(s) against
Legal provision: Article 1, Section 8, Paragraph 3: Interstate Commerce Clause

Sort by Ideology

Voted with the majority
Rehnquist
Wrote a dissent
White
Voted with the minority, joined White's dissent
Blackmun
Wrote a dissent, joined White's dissent
Stevens
Wrote the majority opinion
O'Connor
Voted with the majority
Scalia
Voted with the majority
Kennedy
Voted with the majority
Souter
Voted with the majority
Thomas

Full Opinion by Justice Sandra Day O'Connor

Timeplots Affiliate

Timeplots.com: A Visual History of the Supreme Court