New York v. United States (1992)

SCOTUSCase
Litigants=New York v. United States
ArgueDate=March 30
ArgueYear=1992
DecideDate=June 19
DecideYear=1992
FullName=New York, Petitioner, v. United States et al.; County of Allegany, New York, Petitioner, v. United States; County of Cortland, New York, Petitioner, v. United States et al.
USVol=505
USPage=144
Citation=112 S. Ct. 2408; 120 L. Ed. 2d 120; Nuclear Reg. Rep. P 20,553; 34 ERC 1817; 60 USLW 4603; 22 Envtl. L. Rep. 21,082
Prior=757 F. Supp. 10 (N.D.N.Y. 1990), "aff'd", 942 F.2d 114 (2d Cir. 1991), "cert. granted", 502 U.S. 1023 (1992).
Subsequent=978 F.2d 705 (2d Cir. 1992)
Holding=The "take title" provision of the Low-Level Radioactive Waste Policy Amendments Act violates the Tenth Amendment and exceeds Congress's power under the Commerce Clause.
SCOTUS=1991-1993
Majority=O'Connor
JoinMajority=Rehnquist, Scalia, Kennedy, Souter, Thomas
JoinMajority2=White, Blackmun, Stevens (parts III-A and III-B only)
Concurrence/Dissent=White
JoinConcurrence/Dissent=Blackmun, Stevens
Concurrence/Dissent2=Stevens
LawsApplied=U.S. Const. amend. X; U.S. Const. Art. I; Low-Level Radioactive Waste Policy Amendments Act of 1985

"New York v. United States", 505 U.S. 144 (1992) was a decision of the United States Supreme Court. Justice Sandra Day O'Connor, writing for the majority, found that the "Take Title" provision of the Low-Level Radioactive Waste Policy Amendments Act of 1985 exceeded Congress's power under the Commerce Clause.

Background

The Low-Level Radioactive Waste Policy Amendments Act was an attempt to imbue a negotiated agreement among the States with federal incentives for compliance. The problem of what to do with radioactive waste was a national issue complicated by the political reluctance for states to deal with the problem individually. New York was a willing participant in the compromise, but after the Act was passed, the state attempted to renege.

The Act provided three "incentives" for states to comply with the agreement. The first two incentives were held constitutional. The first incentive, "monetary" incentive, allowed states to collect gradually increasing surcharges for waste received from other United States. The Secretary of Energy would then collect a portion of this income and redistribute it to reward states achieving a series of milestones in waste disposal. This was held to be within Congress's power under the Spending Clause, and an "unexceptional" exercise of that power. The second incentive, the "access" incentive, allowed states to reprimand states that missed certain deadlines by raising surcharges or eventually denying access to disposal at those state's facilities completely. This was held to be a permitted exercise of Congress's power under the Commerce Clause.

The third incentive, requiring states to "take title" and assume liability for waste generated within their borders if they failed to comply, was held to be impermissibly coercive and a threat to state sovereignty, thereby violating the tenth amendment.

The "take title" provision

After noting the constitutionality of the first two incentives, Justice O'Connor characterized the "take title" incentive as an attempt to "commandeer" the state governments by directly compelling them to participate in the federal regulatory program. The federal government "crossed the line distinguishing encouragement from coercion." The distinction was that with respect to the "take title" provision, the States had to choose between conforming to federal regulations or taking title to the waste. Since Congress cannot directly force States to legislate according to their scheme, and since Congress likewise cannot force States to take title to radioactive waste, O'Connor reasoned that Congress cannot force States to choose between the two. Such coercion would be counter to the federalist structure of government, in which a "core of state sovereignty" is enshrined in the Tenth Amendment.

The Court found the "take title" provision to be severable, and, noting the seriousness of the "pressing national problem" being addressed, allowed the remainder of the Act to survive.

Dissent

Justice White wrote a dissenting opinion that was joined by Justices Blackmun and Stevens. He stressed that the Act was a product of "cooperative federalism," a situation where the States "bargained among themselves to achieve compromises for Congress to sanction." Noting that Congress does have the power to directly regulate radioactive waste (as opposed to "compelling state legislatures" to regulate according to their scheme), White said that the "ultimate irony of the decision today is that in its formalistically rigid obeisance to 'federalism,' the Court gives Congress fewer incentives to defer to the wishes of state officials in achieving local solutions to local problems."

ee also

* List of United States Supreme Court cases, volume 505

External links

*caselaw source
case="New York v. United States", 505 U.S. 144 (1992)
enfacto=http://www.enfacto.com/case/U.S./505/144/
findlaw=http://caselaw.lp.findlaw.com/scripts/getcase.pl?navby=CASE&court=US&vol=505&page=144
* [http://www.oyez.org/oyez/resource/case/644/ Summary of case from OYEZ]