437 U.S. 617, 98 S. Ct. 2531, 57 L. Ed. 2d 475 (1978)
In 1973 the New Jersey Legislature enacted chapter 363 of the 1973 N.J. Laws.1 The law took effect in early 1974.2 It provided that no person shall bring into the state any solid or liquid waste which originated or was collected outside the territorial limits of the state.3 The statute excepted garbage to be fed to swine and other limited categories later permitted by the Commissioner of the Department of Environmental Protection.4 The Commissioner promulgated regulations permitting four categories of waste to enter the state while barring all others.5 The statute immediately affected operators of private landfills in New Jersey that had agreements with cities in other states for waste disposal.6
Several landfill operators and out-of-state cities brought suit in New Jersey state court against the State of New Jersey and its Department of Environmental Protection.7 They attacked the statute and regulations on multiple state and federal grounds.8 The trial court granted the plaintiffs' motion for summary judgment in an oral opinion declaring the law unconstitutional because it discriminated against interstate commerce.9 The New Jersey Supreme Court consolidated the case with a similar action and reversed.10
The plaintiffs appealed to the United States Supreme Court.11 The Court noted probable jurisdiction, heard argument, and then remanded for reconsideration of the preemption claim in light of the Resource Conservation and Recovery Act of 1976.12 On remand the New Jersey Supreme Court again found no federal preemption.13 The United States Supreme Court noted probable jurisdiction a second time.14
The New Jersey Supreme Court found that existing landfill sites in the state would be exhausted within a few years.15 Continued use or development of new sites would impose heavy environmental costs from pollution and loss of open lands.16 New disposal techniques were under development but would require time.17 Excluding out-of-state waste could extend the lifespan of existing landfills and thereby help avoid devoting additional virgin wetlands to landfill purposes.18
Whether the interstate movement of solid or liquid waste constitutes commerce within the meaning of the Commerce Clause?19
All objects of interstate trade merit Commerce Clause protection; none is excluded by definition at the outset.20 In cases such as Bowman, the Court held that States could prohibit transportation of innately harmful articles because their worth in interstate commerce was far outweighed by the dangers inhering in their movement, but this conclusion does not remove the articles from the definition of commerce.21
Yes. The New Jersey statute prohibits bringing into the state any solid or liquid waste which originated or was collected outside the territorial limits of the state except for limited categories permitted by regulation.22 The New Jersey Supreme Court concluded that the banned wastes were not commerce because they could not be put to effective use.23 The Supreme Court rejected that two-tiered definition of commerce and held that the interstate movement of the waste at issue here is commerce protected by the Commerce Clause.24
The interstate movement of solid or liquid waste constitutes commerce within the meaning of the Commerce Clause.25
Whether the New Jersey statute has been preempted by federal legislation including the Resource Conservation and Recovery Act of 1976?26
A state law is not preempted by federal solid waste legislation when it can be enforced consistently with the program goals and the respective federal-state roles intended by Congress.27
No. After the Supreme Court remanded for reconsideration in light of the Resource Conservation and Recovery Act of 1976, the New Jersey Supreme Court again found no federal preemption.28 The Supreme Court agrees with the New Jersey court that the state law has not been preempted by federal legislation.29
The New Jersey statute has not been preempted by federal legislation including the Resource Conservation and Recovery Act of 1976.30
Whether the New Jersey statute violates the Commerce Clause of the United States Constitution?31
Where simple economic protectionism is effected by state legislation, a virtually per se rule of invalidity has been erected.32 A state may not accomplish a legitimate goal by discriminating against articles of commerce coming from outside the state unless there is some reason, apart from their origin, to treat them differently.33 Quarantine laws that ban importation of articles requiring destruction because their very movement risks contagion have been upheld.34 But a law that blocks out-of-state waste while leaving landfills open to identical in-state waste is not such a quarantine law when the asserted harms arise after disposal.35
Yes. The statute on its face imposes on out-of-state commercial interests the full burden of conserving the State’s remaining landfill space.36 The New Jersey Supreme Court found that existing landfill sites in the state would be exhausted within a few years. Continued use or development of new sites would impose heavy environmental costs from pollution and loss of open lands.
Excluding out-of-state waste could extend the lifespan of existing landfills.37 The statute bans out-of-state waste while allowing in-state waste even though, as New Jersey concedes, there is no basis to distinguish the two once disposal occurs and the harms arise after disposal rather than from the movement itself.38 This is not a valid quarantine law and therefore violates the Commerce Clause.39
The New Jersey statute violates the Commerce Clause of the United States Constitution.40
Related opinions on this issue
Joined by The Chief Justice
Justice Rehnquist dissented, joined by the Chief Justice.41 He argued that past precedents upholding quarantine laws are dispositive.42 These precedents permit a state to prohibit importation of noxious items such as diseased livestock or germ-infected rags even while the state continues to dispose of its own identical items.43
Rehnquist maintained that solid waste poses serious health and safety hazards including leachate pollution, methane explosions, and rodent problems.44 New Jersey should be free to prohibit importation of such waste without serving as a depository for every other state.45 He rejected the majority's distinction between dangers arising from movement versus dangers arising after disposal as a pointless distinction that the Commerce Clause does not require.46
He concluded that the New Jersey law is constitutional under established precedent.47