260 likes | 385 Views
Flow Control Update . Dormant Commerce Clause Challenges May 13, 2014. Presented by Andrew Foster. Topics for Today:. Historical “Big Picture” C&A Carbone (1994) & United Haulers (2007) Post- United Haulers Cases C&A Carbone/Rockland County (2014)
E N D
Flow Control Update Dormant Commerce Clause Challenges May 13, 2014 Presented by Andrew Foster
Topics for Today: • Historical “Big Picture” • C&A Carbone (1994) & United Haulers (2007) • Post-United Haulers Cases • C&A Carbone/Rockland County (2014) • Implications/What’s Next?
Topics NOT for Today: • Economic Flow Control • Other Legal Challenges: • Void for Vagueness (JWJ Industries) • Impairment of Contracts (City of Dallas) • Due Process Violations • Takings
Historical “Big Picture” Private Public
C & A Carbone v. Clarkstown (1994) • Town ordinance imposed “Flow Control” • Directed all solid waste to a favored private facility • HELD: Violates the dormant Commerce Clause: • “hoards solid waste” for “favored local operator” • “squelches competition” • “discriminates” against interstate commerce • “economic effects are interstate in reach”
United Haulers v. Oneida-Herkimer (2008) • County ordinances imposed “Flow Control” • Directed all solid waste to publicly owned and operated facilities • HELD: No dormant Commerce Clause Violation: • Exception for “publicly owned and operated” facilities • Flow Control laws that benefit “a clearly public facility” . . . are not “discriminatory”
Underlying Second Circuit Opinions: • United Haulers (2d Cir., 2001) • No “discrimination,” because publicly owned facilities • Remanded for Pike balancing • United Haulers (2d Cir., 2006) • Pike balancing challenge rejected • If any “burden,” far outweighed by benefits
Post-United Haulers Developments: • Quality Compliance (2008, M.D. GA.) • Lebanon Farms (2008, 3d Cir.) • Construction Materials (2009, D.N.H.) • Southern Waste (2010, S.D. Fl.) • Active Disposal (2010, N.D. IL.) • Sandlands C&D (Horry County) (2013, 4th Cir.)
C&A Carbone v. Rockland County (2014) • County ordinance imposed waste “Flow Control” • Directed all solid waste AND recyclables to publicly owned, but (arguably) privately operated facilities • HELD: • No “discrimination” under UH (2d Cir., 2001) • Pike balancing rejected per UH (2d Cir. 2006)
C&A Carbone v. Rockland County (2014) • Subholdings: • Mere public ownership of building is determinative • Unprecedented scope → recyclables! • “Market participation” doctrine protects “outsourcing” of operations • Evidence of law’s “ultimate efficacy” → irrelevant
Undermines narrowness of United Haulers publicly “owned and operated”/“clearly public” exception • Encourages adoption of new flow control laws using publicly-owned, but privately-operated facilities • Invites flow control laws encompassing recyclables • Sanctions “nominal” public ownership of buildings to insulate flow control laws from challenge • Invites local governments to favor local firms via the “market participation” exception).
Thank You & Questions? Andrew P. Foster Drinker Biddle & Reath LLP One Logan Square, Ste. 2000 Philadelphia, PA 19103-6996 (215) 988-2512 phone (215) 988-2757 fax Andrew.Foster@dbr.com www.drinkerbiddle.com