Misplaced Pages

Chemical Waste Management, Inc. v. Hunt

Article snapshot taken from Wikipedia with creative commons attribution-sharealike license. Give it a read and then ask your questions in the chat. We can research this topic together.

1992 United States Supreme Court case
Chemical Waste Management, Inc. v. Hunt
Supreme Court of the United States
Argued April 21, 1992
Decided June 1, 1992
Full case nameChemical Waste Management, Inc., petitioner v. Guy Hunt, Governor of Alabama et al., respondents
Citations504 U.S. 334 (more)112 S. Ct. 2009; 119 L. Ed. 2d 121; 60 U.S.L.W. 4433; 34 ERC 1721; 22 Envtl. L. Rep. 20,909
Case history
PriorHunt v. Chemical Waste Mgmt., Inc. 584 So.2d 1367 (Ala. 1991)
Holding
No state may attempt to isolate itself from a problem common to the several States by raising barriers to the free flow of interstate trade; a fee on the importation of out-of-state waste constitutes a barrier to interstate trade. Supreme Court of Alabama reversed and case remanded with instructions.
Court membership
Chief Justice
William Rehnquist
Associate Justices
Byron White · Harry Blackmun
John P. Stevens · Sandra Day O'Connor
Antonin Scalia · Anthony Kennedy
David Souter · Clarence Thomas
Case opinions
MajorityWhite, joined by Blackmun, Stevens, O'Connor, Scalia, Kennedy, Souter, Thomas
DissentRehnquist
Laws applied
U.S. Const. Art. I ยง 8

Chemical Waste Management, Inc. v. Hunt, 504 U.S. 334 (1992), was a United States Supreme Court case that held that an Alabama law imposing a fee (of $72 per ton) on out-of-state hazardous waste being disposed of in-state violated the Dormant Commerce Clause.

Opinion of the Court

The state law was found to discriminate against out-of-state commerce. Justice White explained that "No state may attempt to isolate itself from a problem common to the several States by raising barriers to the free flow of interstate trade," relying on Philadelphia v. New Jersey (1978) as precedent.

The Court suggested two less-discriminatory alternatives to the fee on out-of-state hazardous waste:

  • A generally-applicable, additional fee per ton of all hazardous waste disposed of within Alabama, regardless of its source.
  • A per-mile tax on all vehicles transporting hazardous waste across Alabama roads.

Dissent

Chief Justice Rehnquist dissented arguing that States may wish to avoid the risks to public health and environment by regulating the disposal of hazardous waste. He continued to say that since taxes are a recognized and effective means for discouraging the consumption of scarce commodities, which he in this case had deemed the environment. Then there was nothing unconstitutional or discriminatory about the state of Alabama's taxes.

Related cases

See also

References

  1. White v. Massachusetts Council of Constr. Employers, Inc., 460 U.S. 204, 206 (1983).
  2. Reeves, Inc. v. Stake, 447 U.S. 429, 436 (1980).
  3. Hughes v. Alexandria Scrap Corp., 426 U.S. 794, 810 (1976).

Further reading

  • O'Leary, Rosemary (1997). "Trash Talk: The Supreme Court and the Interstate Transportation of Waste". Public Administration Review. 57 (4). American Society for Public Administration: 281โ€“284. doi:10.2307/977308. JSTOR 977308.

External links

U.S. Supreme Court Article I case law
Enumeration Clause of Section II
Qualifications Clauses of Sections II and III
Elections Clause of Section IV
Speech or Debate Clause of Section VI
Origination Clause of Section VII
Presentment Clause of Section VII
Taxing and Spending Clause of Section VIII
Commerce Clause of Section VIII
Dormant Commerce Clause
Others
Coinage Clause of Section VIII
Legal Tender Cases
Copyright Clause of Section VIII
Copyright Act of 1790
Patent Act of 1793
Patent infringement case law
Patentability case law
Copyright Act of 1831
Copyright Act of 1870
Sherman Antitrust Act of 1890
International Copyright Act of 1891
Copyright Act of 1909
Patent misuse case law
Clayton Antitrust Act of 1914
Lanham Act
Copyright Act of 1976
Other copyright cases
Other patent cases
Other trademark cases
Necessary and Proper Clause of Section VIII
Habeas corpus Suspension Clause of Section IX
No Bills of Attainder or Ex post facto Laws Clause of Section IX
Contract Clause of Section X
Legal Tender Cases
Others
Import-Export Clause of Section X
Compact Clause of Section X


Stub icon

This article related to the Supreme Court of the United States is a stub. You can help Misplaced Pages by expanding it.

Categories: