Flow Control Update
26
Flow Control Update Dormant Commerce Clause Challenges May 13, 2014 Presented by Andrew Foster
description
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) - PowerPoint PPT Presentation
Transcript of Flow Control Update
Flow Control Update Dormant Commerce Clause
ChallengesMay 13, 2014
Presented by Andrew Foster
2
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 for Today:
3
Economic Flow Control Other Legal Challenges:
- Void for Vagueness (JWJ Industries)
- Impairment of Contracts (City of Dallas)
- Due Process Violations
- Takings
Topics NOT for Today:
4
Historical “Big Picture”
Public
Private
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
(Expert Report, C&A Carbone/Rockland County, M. Berkman)
14
15
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”
C & A Carbone v. Clarkstown (1994)
16
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”
United Haulers v. Oneida-Herkimer (2008)
17
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
Underlying Second Circuit Opinions:
18
19
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.)
Post-United Haulers Developments:
20
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)
21
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
22
(Expert Report, C&A Carbone/Rockland County, M. Berkman)
23
Implications/What’s Next?
24
25
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).
Andrew P. FosterDrinker Biddle & Reath LLP
One Logan Square, Ste. 2000Philadelphia, PA 19103-6996
(215) 988-2512 phone(215) 988-2757 fax
www.drinkerbiddle.com
26
Thank You & Questions?
