City of Philadelphia v. New Jersey
437 U.S. 617 (1978)
Premium Feature
Subscribe to Lexplug to listen to the Case Podcast.
Rule of Law:
A state law that on its face discriminates against articles of commerce coming from outside the state solely because of their origin is a protectionist measure that violates the dormant Commerce Clause. A state cannot isolate itself from a national problem by erecting barriers against the movement of interstate trade, even to achieve a legitimate local purpose such as protecting the environment.
Facts:
- New Jersey was experiencing a rapid increase in waste and a decrease in available landfill sites.
- The New Jersey legislature determined that the disposal of waste, particularly waste originating from outside the state, posed a threat to the state's environment and the health of its citizens.
- In 1973, New Jersey enacted a law, Chapter 363, which prohibited bringing most solid or liquid waste that originated or was collected outside New Jersey into the state for disposal.
- The law contained narrow exceptions for certain categories of waste, such as garbage to be fed to swine and specific recyclable materials.
- Private landfill operators in New Jersey had existing agreements with cities in other states, including Philadelphia, Pennsylvania, to accept their waste for disposal.
- The New Jersey law directly prevented these landfill operators and out-of-state cities from continuing their business arrangements.
Procedural Posture:
- Private landfill operators in New Jersey and cities from other states sued New Jersey and its Department of Environmental Protection in a New Jersey state trial court.
- The state trial court granted summary judgment for the plaintiffs, declaring the law unconstitutional.
- New Jersey, as the defendant, appealed to the New Jersey Supreme Court.
- The New Jersey Supreme Court reversed the trial court's ruling, finding the law to be a permissible exercise of state power.
- The plaintiffs, as appellants, appealed to the U.S. Supreme Court.
- The U.S. Supreme Court remanded the case for reconsideration in light of a new federal law.
- On remand, the New Jersey Supreme Court again upheld the state law.
- The plaintiffs again appealed to the U.S. Supreme Court, which noted probable jurisdiction.
Premium Content
Subscribe to Lexplug to view the complete brief
You're viewing a preview with Rule of Law, Facts, and Procedural Posture
Issue:
Does a New Jersey law that prohibits the importation of most solid and liquid waste originating from outside the state violate the Commerce Clause of the U.S. Constitution?
Opinions:
Majority - Mr. Justice Stewart
Yes. The New Jersey law violates the Commerce Clause because it is a protectionist measure that overtly discriminates against articles of interstate commerce. First, the Court established that waste, even if it has no economic value, is an article of commerce protected by the Commerce Clause. The Court then determined that New Jersey's law was facially discriminatory because it imposed the full burden of conserving the state's landfill space on out-of-state commercial interests. The Court reasoned that the law's ultimate purpose, whether economic protection or environmental preservation, was irrelevant because the means chosen—discriminating against articles of commerce based on their origin—is constitutionally impermissible. The law was not a valid quarantine measure because, unlike diseased livestock, the waste posed no unique harm during its movement, and out-of-state waste was identical to in-state waste in terms of the harm it caused after disposal in a landfill. Therefore, the law was an unconstitutional attempt by one state to isolate itself from a problem common to many by erecting a barrier against interstate trade.
Dissenting - Mr. Justice Rehnquist
No. The New Jersey law does not violate the Commerce Clause because it is a valid health and safety measure analogous to a quarantine law. The dissent argued that solid waste is a noxious substance that presents serious health and safety dangers, similar to germ-infected rags or diseased meat, which states are permitted to ban from importation. The fact that New Jersey must, out of necessity, dispose of its own hazardous waste does not obligate it under the Commerce Clause to accept waste from other states, thereby exacerbating its environmental and health problems. The majority’s distinction between harm in transit and harm at the point of disposal is a pointless one; a state should be able to ban items that will accumulate and create an increasing danger to the public's health. The law was a legitimate attempt to preserve the health of New Jersey residents by minimizing their exposure to solid waste, not a measure of economic protectionism.
Analysis:
This decision is a cornerstone of dormant Commerce Clause jurisprudence, establishing that environmental protectionism is just as unconstitutional as economic protectionism. The Court solidified the principle that state laws engaging in facial discrimination against out-of-state commerce are subject to a virtual per se rule of invalidity. By rejecting New Jersey's attempt to hoard a natural resource (landfill space) for its own citizens, the ruling forces states to address national problems through evenhanded regulations rather than by isolating themselves. Future cases involving state regulations on waste, resources, or environmental issues must now pass the high bar of demonstrating that they do not discriminate based on origin or, if they do, that there is no other non-discriminatory means to achieve a legitimate local objective.
