Question

1. Highlight the pertinent facts; 2. Identify the issue of law posed by the case problem; 3. What should be the decision in the case? 4. The reasoning for such decision.

Plaintiff, a Delaware corporation with its principal place of business in Oak Brook, Illinois owns and operates one of the Nation’s oldest commercial hazardous waste land disposal facilities, located in Emelle, Alabama, 1 of only 16 states that have commercial hazardous waste landfills. The Emelle facility is the largest of the 21 landfills of this kind located in these 16 states. Against this backdrop, Alabama enacted Act No. 90-326 (the Act), which includes a “cap” that generally limits the amount of hazardous wastes or substances that may be disposed of in any 1-year period, and the amount of hazardous waste disposed of during the first year under the Act’s new fees becomes the permanent ceiling in subsequent years. The Act imposes a fee of $97.60 per ton for hazardous wastes generated outside of Alabama and a fee of $25.60 per ton on hazardous wastes generated within Alabama. Plaintiff filed suit claiming that the Alabama law violated the United States Constitution.

Answer 1

The additional fee is found to be in violation of the U.S. Constitution.  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.

Ultimately, the State's concern focuses on the volume of the waste entering the Emelle facility.  Less discriminatory alternatives, however, are available to alleviate this concern, not the least of which are a generally applicable per-ton additional fee on all hazardous waste disposed of within Alabama, or a per-mile tax on all vehicles transporting hazardous waste across Alabama roads, or an evenhanded cap on the total tonnage landfilled at Emelle, which would curtail volume from all sources.

Chemical Waste Management, Inc. could argue that the Alabama statute imposes an unfair burden on interstate commerce that is excessive compared to the local benefit and that there are non-discriminatory alternatives available. It also could contend that Alabama’s tax interfered with interstate commerce.

Alabama could argue that the additional fee of $72.00 served a legitimate local purpose related to its citizens’ health and safety that could not be adequately served by reasonable non-discriminatory alternatives, given recent large increases in the hazardous waste received into the state and the possible adverse effects of such waste. Alabama also could contend that it is bearing the health risk that other states refused to accept.

The additional fee is in violation of the U.S. Constitution. Chemical Waste Management, Inc. v. Hunt, U. S. Supreme Court 1992, 504 U.S. 334.

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. Ultimately, the state’s concern focuses on the volume of the waste entering the Emelle facility. Less discriminatory alternatives, however, are available to alleviate this concern, not the least of which are a generally applicable per-ton additional fee on all hazardous waste disposed of within Alabama, or a per-mile tax on all vehicles transporting hazardous waste across Alabama roads, or an evenhanded cap on the total tonnage landfilled at Emelle, which would curtail volume from all sources.