April 30, 2007

Nerd Alert!

So....we're talking about the dormant commerce clause in Con Law, and obviously we've gone over the New Jersey and Clarkstown cases about the shipping of waste from state to state. (*puts on nerd hat*) Just saw today that the Supreme Court ruled on another interstate waste shipping case: UNITED HAULERS ASSOCIATION, INC., et al. v. ONEIDA-HERKIMER SOLID WASTE MANAGEMENT AUTHORITY et al. They cite both the New Jersey and Clarkstown cases: "Discriminatory laws motivated by 'simple economic protectionism' are subject to a 'virtually per se rule of invalidity,' Philadelphia v. New Jersey." AND "Ruling in the haulers’ favor, the District Court held that nearly all flow control laws had been categorically rejected in C & A Carbone, Inc. v. Clarkstown." The district court was affirmed.

Strangely, though, Alito dissented with Stevens and Kennedy... "This case cannot be meaningfully distinguished from Carbone [Clarkstown]. As the Court itself acknowledges, '[t]he only salient difference' between the cases is that the ordinance invalidated in Carbone discriminated in favor of a privately owned facility, whereas the laws at issue here discriminate in favor of 'facilities owned and operated by a state-created public benefit corporation.' Ante, at 1. The Court relies on the distinction between public and private ownership to uphold the flow-control laws, even though a straightforward application of Carbone would lead to the opposite result. See ante, at 10–12. The public-private distinction drawn by the Court is both illusory and without precedent."


Another Asian Law Student said...

... was this discussed in your CLASS ... OR ... did you go OUT of your way to research this?

Scrumtrulescent said...

umm...it's possible that I have an RSS feed of recent Supreme Court decisions

Another Asian Law Student said...

unfortunate. i thought i was the king of nerds... i resign.. you win.

--------------- ---------------