United Haulers Association v. Oneida-Herkimer Solid Waste Management Authority

Media Items
United Haulers Association v. Oneida-Herkimer Solid Waste Management Authority - Oral Argument
Get Adobe Flash Player
United Haulers Association v. Oneida-Herkimer Solid Waste Management Authority - Opinion Announcement
Get Adobe Flash Player
Advocates
Michael J. Cahill (argued the cause for Respondents)
Evan Mark Tager (argued the cause for Petitioners)
Caitlin J. Halligan (argued the cause for Respondents)
Case Basics
Docket No.: 
05-1345
Petitioner: 
United Haulers Association, Inc., et al.
Respondent: 
Oneida-Herkimer Solid Waste Management Authority, et al.
Opinion: 
550 U.S. ___ (2007)
Location No location information present.

Cite this page
The Oyez Project, United Haulers Association v. Oneida-Herkimer Solid Waste Management Authority , 550 U.S. ___ (2007)
available at: (http://oyez.org/cases/2000-2009/2006/2006_05_1345)
Facts of the Case: 

Oneida and Herkimer counties adopted a local "flow control" ordinance requiring locally-produced garbage to be delivered to local publicly-owned facilities. The United Haulers Association filed suit in federal district court, arguing that by prohibiting the export of waste and preventing waste haulers from using less expensive out-of-state facilities, the ordinance ran afoul of the dormant Commerce Clause. The Supreme Court has held that the Commerce Clause forbids any state law that regulates interstate commerce. The District Court ruled against United Haulers and held that the ordinance was constitutional because it did not discriminate against out-of-state businesses.

On appeal, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit affirmed. The Court of Appeals ruled that even if the ordinance imposed a slight burden on interstate commerce, the effect was outweighed by the ordinance's local benefits.

Question: 

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?

Conclusion: 

No. The Court voted 6-3 to affirm the Second Circuit and uphold the ordinance. Chief Justice John Roberts's majority opinion distinguished the Oneida-Herkimer ordinance from previous ordinances that were struck down by the Court by emphasizing that the favored waste-disposal facilities were publicly operated. The majority found that "[t]he flow control ordinances in this case benefit a clearly public facility, while treating all private companies exactly the same." After deeming the ordinance nondiscriminatory, the Court balanced its burden on commerce against its financial, health, and environmental benefits. The Court found that it imposed only an "incidental burden." The majority declined to "rigorously scrutinize" the economic effects of the ordinance, preferring to leave the policy analysis to local government. The dissent by Justice Alito would have held that the ordinance discriminated against commerce and was thus unconstitutional.

Decisions

Decision: 6 votes for Oneida-Herkimer Solid Waste Management Authority, 3 vote(s) against
Legal provision: Article 1, Section 8, Paragraph 3: Interstate Commerce Clause

Sort by Ideology

Wrote the majority opinion
Roberts
Voted with the minority, joined Alito's dissent
Stevens
Wrote a regular concurrence
Scalia
Voted with the minority, joined Alito's dissent
Kennedy
Voted with the majority
Souter
Wrote a special concurrence
Thomas
Voted with the majority
Ginsburg
Voted with the majority
Breyer
Wrote a dissent
Alito

Full Opinion by Justice John G. Roberts, Jr.

Timeplots Affiliate

Timeplots.com: A Visual History of the Supreme Court