Constitutional Law 622, Extra Credit #5, Bond, #4552
docx
School
Taft Law School *
*We aren’t endorsed by this school
Course
622
Subject
Law
Date
Feb 20, 2024
Type
docx
Pages
3
Uploaded by ChefFlower13087
City, a municipality in State X, owns and operates a landfill site for household and commercial
non-hazardous waste disposal. City finances this operation by charging fees based on a rate
formula involving the weight and volume of waste delivered at the site. City’s landfill is
relatively new and therefore has substantial unused capacity.
Outko, an out-of-state trucking firm engaged in hauling non-hazardous waste, has entered into
contracts with various out-of-state municipalities to transport their non-hazardous wastes for
disposal to City’s landfill. Inko, a State X trucking firm with its offices in City, has been hauling
non-hazardous waste from sources within City, from elsewhere in State X, and from outside of
State X, to City’s landfill for disposal.
City has recently enacted an ordinance banning disposal of out-of-state waste in City’s landfill
and imposing a new rate fee for waste from sources anywhere outside of City, but within State
X. This new rate fee is twice that charged for waste of identical weight and volume from sources
within City.
The National Association of Waste Truckers (NAWT) is an organization representing waste
haulers. Both Outko and Inko are members of NAWT. On behalf of all of its members, NAWT
plans to bring an action against City in federal District court in State X, challenging the
constitutionality of the landfill ordinance.
1.
What challenges, if any, under the U.S. Constitution, may be brought against City’s landfill ordinance, and how should each be decided? Discuss
2.
May NAWT properly assert those challenges? Discuss
COMMERCE CLAUSE
The Commerce Clause is a power by Congress under Article 1, Section 8, Clause 3 of the U.S. Constitution to regulate commerce between the states by regulating the channels of interstate commerce, the instrumentalities of interstate commerce along with persons and things and regulating the activities that have a substantial effect on interstate commerce.
Under the Police Power of Amendment 10, the City’s ordinance is in the best interest of the Health and welfare of the citizens. Therefore, the ordinance must be upheld unless there is a violation of a federal constitutional law or there is a federal constitutional principle which limits the states regulatory authority or there is no rational basis for the State’s regulation.
Outko’s business is the hauling and transporting of non-hazardous wastes via out-of-state and within the state, therefore falling under interstate commerce. The City has double charged for those which are interstate commerce, causing a discrimination against interstate commerce. Since the materials are non-hazardous there is not justification for such a discrimination under the guise of the health and welfare of the citizens.
DUE PROCESS CLAUSE
Under the due process clause, individuals are provided certain protections from the state and local government if a state or local law would deprive them of their life, liberty or property. Under the 5
th
amendment there are procedural due process, which is the process by which legal proceedings are conducted and the substantive due process, which is the substantial elements to the laws which are applied during the legal proceedings.
Outko is given the same liberties as the in-state corporations and would be protected against the excessive fees charged to only the interstate commerce.
EQUAL PROTECTION CLAUSE
Under the equal protection clause all citizens of the United States are to be treated equally by the state or jurisdiction in which the citizen is located and shall have the equal protection of its laws. CA cannot cause multiple taxes or additional fees to be placed on an interstate commerce business as this would not be considered equal and fair treatment and discriminatory to the interstate commerce.
DISCRIMINATORY TAXES
States cannot discriminate against interstate commerce by taxing them unfairly or excessively. It
is the burden of the taxed entity to prove the state is discriminating.
Outko is being charged double the fees only due to being an interstate commerce which is discriminatory in nature.
Market Participation Exception City appears to be acting as a market participant, therefore, the regulation would be incidental to its operation as a business, not the health and welfare of the citizens. Since the citizens have funded the programs which the local government is operating then it may act in favor of its citizens.
City can operate its business in favor of its citizens, but ordinances and regulation should be fair and equal to all, otherwise the government would be taking advantage of its power and causing discriminatory practices. Therefore the ordinance would violate this and would not be considered to be acting as a market participant.
2. May NAWT properly assert those challenges? Discuss. Justicability Under Article III, Section 2, of the United States Constitution, in order to be justicable, claims must present a real, live case or controversy. Mere political questions or advisory opinions will not be heard by a federal court. NAWT has real claims and damages through its agents due to the rate structure implemented by the City.
Standing Standing of a plaintiff requires: injury in fact, causation, individualization, and redressability.
NAWT is an association, and will have standing to sue where the members of the organization would have standing to sue, See below:
1. Members' Individual Standing. All members must have standing individually for the association to have standing. Here, NAWT represents waste handlers Outko and Inco, both are members of NAWT and have been injured by the increased rate structure, they each have individual standing, therefore meet the members’ individual standing.. 2. Germane to Association Purpose. The Association was formed to protect the rights of waste handlers, and to promote the business interests of members such as INCO and OUTKO. 3. No Individual Participation. Inco and Outko differ in that Inco has an office in the state and Outko is out-of-state, therefore, they may have additional individual claims, but the increased rate on interstate commerce is what NAWT would be filing the claim against and this would not affect the companies individual rights and immunities for their own claims.
State Action A government actor must have caused the Constitutional abrogation to plaintif. Here, City is the government entity that potentially caused harm to the plaintiffs. Conclusion NAWT can likely establish organizational standing, but the two entities also have differing claims which they could filed separately, due to these differences it could cause the NAWT claim for organizational standing to be invalid.
Your preview ends here
Eager to read complete document? Join bartleby learn and gain access to the full version
- Access to all documents
- Unlimited textbook solutions
- 24/7 expert homework help