Misplaced Pages

Oregon Waste Systems, Inc. v. Department of Environmental Quality of Oregon

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.
(Redirected from Oregon Waste Systems, Inc. v. Department of Environmental Quality of Ore.)

1994 United States Supreme Court case
Oregon Waste Systems, Inc. v. Department of Environmental Quality of Oregon
Supreme Court of the United States
Argued January 18, 1994
Decided April 4, 1994
Full case nameOregon Waste Systems, Inc., et al. v. Department of Environmental Quality of Oregon, et al.
Citations511 U.S. 93 (more)114 S. Ct. 1345; 128 L. Ed. 2d 13
Case history
Prior316 Ore. 99 (reversed and remanded).
Holding
Oregon's surcharge was invalid under the dormant commerce clause
Court membership
Chief Justice
William Rehnquist
Associate Justices
Harry Blackmun · John P. Stevens
Sandra Day O'Connor · Antonin Scalia
Anthony Kennedy · David Souter
Clarence Thomas · Ruth Bader Ginsburg
Case opinions
MajorityThomas, joined by Stevens, O'Connor, Scalia, Kennedy, Souter, Ginsburg
DissentRehnquist, joined by Blackmun
Laws applied
U.S. Const. art. I ยง 8 cl. 3 (Commerce Clause), Dormant Commerce Clause

Oregon Waste Systems, Inc. v. Department of Environmental Quality of Oregon, 511 U.S. 93 (1994), is a United States Supreme Court decision focused on the aspect of state power and the interpretation of the Commerce Clause as a limitation on states' regulatory power. In this particular case, the Supreme Court considered whether the Oregon Department of Environmental Quality's alleged cost-based surcharge on the disposal of out-of-state waste violated the dormant commerce clause.

Opinion of the Court

The Court voted 7–2 in favor of Oregon Waste Systems, holding that Oregon's surcharge was invalid under the negative commerce clause. This meant that the surcharge favored in-state economic interests over out-of-state counterparts. The surcharge was discriminatory to outside states because it imposed a fee three times greater than that imposed on in-state waste.

In order for such a surcharge to be valid, it would have to be justified as compensatory, in that it makes out-of-state shippers pay their fair share of the disposal costs. This would have to be equivalent to a measurable standard that would be the same for in-state shipping. However, Oregon's surcharge of $2.25 for out-of-state waste compared with a surcharge of $0.85 on in-state waste was determined facially discriminatory. Citing a previous case, the Supreme Court indicated that such surcharges may be acceptable if they were based on increased costs specifically associated with out-of-state waste.

See also

References

  1. Stephens, Otis. American Constitutional Law Volume 1. Thomson Wadsworth. USA, 2003
  2. Supreme Court Collection. Cornell University Law School. Legal Information Institute

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
Categories: