City of Philadelphia v. New Jersey
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
| Philadelphia v. New Jersey | ||||||||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
 |
||||||||||
| Argued March 27, 1978 Decided June 23, 1978 |
||||||||||
|
||||||||||
| Holding | ||||||||||
| States can not discriminate against another state's articles of commerce. | ||||||||||
| Court membership | ||||||||||
| Chief Justice: Warren E. Burger Associate Justices: William J. Brennan, Jr., Potter Stewart, Byron White, Thurgood Marshall, Harry Blackmun, Lewis F. Powell, Jr., William Rehnquist, John Paul Stevens |
||||||||||
| Case opinions | ||||||||||
| Majority by: Stewart Joined by: Brennan, White, Marshall, Blackmun, Powell, Stevens Dissent by: Rehnquist Joined by: Burger |
||||||||||
| Laws applied | ||||||||||
| U.S. Const. art. I ยง 8 cl. 3 (Commerce Clause), Dormant Commerce Clause | ||||||||||
City of Philadelphia v. New Jersey, , was a case in which the Supreme Court of the United States held that states could not discriminate against another state's articles of commerce.
Contents |
[edit] The Dispute
In this 1978 case, the Supreme Court invalidated a 1973 New Jersey law that prohibited most "solid or liquid waste which originated or was collected outside the territorial limits" of New Jersey from being imported into the state. New Jersey claimed to be trying to protect the health and safety of its citizens. Challenging the ban were Philadelphia, as well as private landfill operators in New Jersey and several cities outside the Garden State.
[edit] Court's Findings
The Court found the law unconstitutional because it violated the Dormant Commerce Clause. In writing for the majority, Justice Stewart concluded that
- "whatever New Jersey's ultimate purpose, it may not be accomplished by discriminating against articles of commerce coming from outside the State unless there is some reason, apart from their origin, to treat them differently."
In other words, New Jersey couldn't regulate beyond its borders.
Furthermore, the court held that legitimate local interests which had incidental interstate effects were within the state's general police powers, but "where simple economic protectionism is effected by state legislation, a virtually per se rule of invalidity has been erected". [1]
[edit] Dissent
Justice Rehnquist, joined by Justice Burger, maintained that the law was Constitutional, based on the validity of quarantine laws. Rehnquist reasoned that the toxic trash New Jersey handled from out-of-state was no different than diseased meat and germ-infected rags that were legally prohibited in quarantine laws.
"The physical fact of life that New Jersey must somehow dispose of its own noxious items does not mean that it must serve as a depository for those of every other state."
Because states can rightfully burden interstate commerce in the name of health and safety, Rehnquist found no hindrance to this law in the Commerce Clause.
[edit] See also
[edit] External links
- ^ 437 U.S. 617 Full text of the opinion courtesy of Findlaw.com.
- Summary of case from OYEZ
