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.
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