H on. Charles N
. Clevert, J r. , ChiefJ ud ge ofthe Easte rn  Dis t ri c tofW i s c ons i n, i s s i t t i ng by des i gna t i on.



## In the 

# U n ited S ta tes Co urt o f Ap p ea ls

F o rth eS e v e n th C ir cu it
N o. 10

- 2568 A CTI VE D I S POS AL, I NC ., et al., P laint if fs -App el lants , v. C ITY OF D ARI EN, et al., D efend a nts-A pp ellees.

Appeal from the United States District Court fo r the N o rthernDi stricto f Illino is, Eas tern Div isi on. No . 09 C2930

—MatthewF. Kenn elly, Judge .
A RG UE D J AN UA RY 7, 2011

— D ECI DE D M AR CH 14, 2011

Befo re M ANI ON an d W I L L I A MS, C ircu it Ju dg es, a nd C LEV ERT, D istrict Judge.

 M A NI ON, Ci r c u i tJ udg e . P lain tiffs su ed se ve ra l m u n icipal i ti es cl ai m i ng the m unici pal i ti es’ excl usi ve c on tr acts f o r t r as h d ispos alv i o l at e fede r ala nt i trus t l aw. The di st r i ctc o ur t he l d tha t t he co nt r ac ts fel l wi th i n the2 N o. 10

- 2568 sta te- acti on e xcepti on t o anti tr ust l aw and dis m i sse d th e com p lain t. T h e sta te -ac tio n d oc tr in e allow s m u n icipal i ti es to engag e i n conduct that w ou ld o ther w i se vi ol ate anti tr ust l aw wh en the c on d uct i s a uthor i zed by th e st at e unde r a po l i cy to di spl ac e co m pet i ti on. Plai ntiff s a pp eal

. Because the s tat e- acti on doct rine appli es to th e mu n i c i p a l i t i e s ’ c o n t r a c t s f o r t r a s h d i s p o s a l, w e a ffi r m.

I. I n so m e com m u n i ti es acr oss I l l i noi s, wh en a perso n or busi ness needs a du m psterf ora spri ng cl eani ng o r f or bi gge r const ruction jobs, theycan’ t j ust o pen the Yel l ow Pages and fi nd the bestdeal

. Ins te ad , they ha ve to use a speci fi c co m pany with which the m unici pal i ty has a n excl usi ve contr act. W hi l e these contr acts o ften hav e a fi n a n c i a l b e n e fi tf o r th e mu n i c i p a l i t y, t he y a l s o i mpose a co st on co nsum er s who w oul d prefera differ ent, probabl y l ess expensi ve, tras h haul er . The co ntra cts a lso p re ve n t o th er tra sh h au ler s fro m co m p et in g in these m ar ket s. Pl ai nti ffs ar e m ade up oftwo gr oups: tr as h h au l er s who wantt o c o m pet e f o r b us i ne ss , a nd b u sin es se s t h at w ish to h ire a ch ea p er tra sh h au ler . In thi s case , thei r i nter esti s l i m i ted to the re m ova l o fwaste th at is p l a c e d in larg e ro ll-off d u m p st er s. W ith th eir alig n ed int er es ts , pla in tiffs su e d th e d efe n d an t m u n icipal i ti es , c l ai m i ng tha t th ei r e xc l us i ve c o nt r ac ts r un a f o ul o ffe d e r a l a n t i t r u s tl a w. The m unici pa liti es m ove d to dism i ss the c om pla i nt, ar gui ng tha t e xcl usi ve contr acts f orwast e r em ova l ar e per m i ssibl e under th e stat e- acti on doct rine, wh i chN o. 10

- 2568 3

F or m u ch of the o p in i o n , w e cite to o ne p art o f the Illinois 1 sta tu te s, sp ec ific a lly 65 I L C S 5/1 1 -1 9 -1 , etseq . Further referen c es wil l c i t e t o e ac h pa rtwith the Actas § 1 a nd s o f or th. ex em p ts st at es from fed er al an tit ru st law

. Parke rv . Brown , 31 7 U. S
. 3 4 1 , 3 5 0

- 5 1 ( 1 9 4 3 )
. T h e d o c t r i n e s t e ms fr o m t he f act that the S herm an A nti tr ust Act, 15 U
. S. C. §§ 1, et seq
. , do es no t appl y t o s o ve r ei gn enti ti es . Ov erthe yea r s , the doctr i ne has been l ogi cal l y e xtended to shi el d m unici pal itie s fr om anti tr ust l aw wh en the m unici pal i ty’ s a cti ons ar e “ author i zed bythe St ate pu rs uant to st ate pol i cy to d ispl ace com peti ti on with r e g ul a t i o n o r mo no po l y p ub l i c s e r v i c e. ” Tow n of Halli e v. C ity of Ea u Clair, 47 1 U.S
. 34 , 39 ( 1985 ) (q u ot atio n om i tte d ); LaSa ll e N at. Ba nk v. D uP age Co unty, 777 F. 2d 377, 38 0- 81 (7th C ir. 1985). H er e, th e p ar t i e s ’ d isp u te ce n te rs on w h et h er Il lin ois has g i ven i ts m unici pal i ti es the a uthor i ty to contra ct for the c o l l e c t i o n a nd di s po s i t i o n o f wa s t e . I l l i no i s ha s a n enti re A ct devo ted to the pow er s o fi ts m unic ip al i ti es, i ncl ud i ng the i r au th or i ty ove r w ast e. A m ong the pr ovis ion s, on e is tit led “ C on tr ac ts ”; it e m p ow er s m u n icip aliti es t o make c o nt r ac ts “ r el at i ng to the c o l l ec ti o n a nd fi nal di sposi ti on, . . . o fga rba ge, refu se and as hes. ” 6 5 I LCS 5/ 11

- 19 -1 ( a)
. The muni ci pal i ti es a r g ue d a nd the 1 d i s t r i c t c ou rtfou n d th at th is s ta tu te au th or ize s t h e c h all enged co ntra cts and that a nti

- com peti ti ve conse quences ar e th e n aturaland f or ese eabl e r esul t o fsuch a co ntra ct. T h u s , th e d i s t r i c tc o u r th e l d th a tth e s t a t e - a c t i o n d o ct r i ne ap p lied a n d d ism iss ed p lain tiffs ’ co m p lain t. T h ey ap p ea l.4 N o. 10

- 2568 II. W e r evi ew the gr anti ng o fa m oti on t o dism iss d e no vo and affirm i fthe com pla i nt does noti ncl ud e f acts that s t a te a p lau sib le c laim for re lief. Jus t i cev. Town of C icero , 577 F. 3d 768, 77 1 ( 7th Ci r. 20 09)
. Our anal ys is re sts o n th e co m pl aint, a nd we co ns true i t i n the l i g htmos t f avorabl e t o th e pl ai nti ff s, acc epti ng as tr ue al l well

- ple aded f acts al l ege d a nd draw i ng al l perm i ssibl e i nfe re n c es in th eir fav or . Id.

A. On app eal, pl ai nti ff s a rgue thatth e m unici pal i ti es’ pow erto m ake “e xcl usi ve” co n tr acts f orwaste r em ova l ar i ses n ota s the di s t r i c tc o ur tf o un d u nd e r § 1 , b utu nd er § 5
. S ecti on 5 i s t i tl ed “M etho d of D isp osi ti on”; i t g i ves m unicipal i ti es the a uthor i ty to presc ribe a n excl usi ve m et h od for d isp os in g of t ra sh an d lists se ve ra l ac c ep ta b le m etho ds, i nc l udi ngdumpi ngi t i n a l an dfi l l

. Perti ne nt h ere, i t pr ovi des thatsuch a m etho d can be enacte d despit e the effect i t has o n com peti ti on, and it sta tes that “ [ m] a t e r i a l tha ti s i nt e nd e d o r c o l l e c t e d t o be re cycl ed i s no t g arbage , re fuse or ashes

. ” 65 I LC S 5/ 11- 19- 5. Pl ainti ff s a rgue that s in c e § 5 sta tes thatthe m etho d m ay b e “ e xc l us i ve” a nd tha tc o mpe t i t i o n wi l l b e di s pl a c e d, th e m uni ci pal i ti es ’ a utho r i tyt o e nt eri nt o e xclus i ve c o ntr ac ts co m es from § 5, an d n ot§ 1. A n d sin c e § 5 is l i m i te d t o disp osi ngo fg arba g e, r efus e, a nd a sh es , the m uni c i p a l i t y d o e s n o th a v e th e p o we r t o ma k e c o ntr ac ts co n c er n in g re c yc lab les , bec au se “[ m ]at er ial th at is i ntended or col lec ted to be re cycl ed i s no t g arbage , re fuse, o r ashes

. ” Id.N o. 10

- 2568 5 T o a d d re ss p lain tiffs ’ ar g u m en t, th e firs t is su e is whi chs ec ti o n a utho r i ze s m uni ci pal i ti es t o c r ea te e xc lusi ve contr acts f orthe col l ecti on a nd di sposi ti on o f w ast e. Look i ng atthe text of§ 5, i t doe s no t a pp earthat i t gi ves m unici pal i ti es the pow er to contr act. For one, th e te x t of § 5 does not deal with c ontr acts
. I t deal s with the po wert o pr es cr ibe e xc l us i ve meth o ds o fdi spo sing ofga rba ge: A ny m unici pal i ty m ay provi de by or dinance th at such m etho d orm eth od s s hal l be the e xcl usi ve m etho d orm etho ds f orthe di sposi ti on o fga rba ge, re fu se an d as h es to be allow ed w ith in th at m u n icipal i ty. 65 I LC S 5/ 11- 19- 5. T h e t er m “e xcl usi ve” i n that sente nce does not re ferto co ntra cts ordeal i ngs, but to t h e m etho d ofdi sposal

. M or eov er, wh i l e a s ta tute’ s t i tl e doe s no t d efi n e i ts m ea n in g, it is re lev an t. U nite d State s v. C hem tco , 274 F.3d 11 54, 1 15 9 ( 7th Ci r . 2 00 1)
. And he r e, § 5 ’ s te xt ac c or d s w ith its tit le: “M et h od of D isp os itio n .” Si m i l ar l y, the ti tl e o f§ 1 “Contra cts” m i rr or s i ts text, w hi ch gr ants m unici pa litie s th e p ow er t o m ake contr acts f orthe col l ecti on a nd di sposition o fga rba ge, refu s e , a n d a sh es. I n fact, § 1 i s the only part of the en tire A ct that m enti ons contr acts
. The f act that § 1 does notuse the t er m “e xcl usi ve” i s i rr el evant t o w hetheri t g i ves m uni c i pa l i t i e s the a utho r i t y t o e nt e ri nt o a n e xc l usi ve contr act

— afteral l an e xcl usi ve contr act i s m er el y a su bs eto fthe po wert o c o nt r ac t. M oreo ve r, thi s r ea di ng is b u tt re ss ed by t h e fa c t t h at for t h irt y-fiv e y ea rs Il lin ois co ur ts ha ve r ea d § 1 a s pr o vi di ngmuni ci pal i ti es the6 N o. 10

- 2568

a u th or ity to form co n tr ac ts
. E.g
. , Ur b a n Pro d u c t s In t e r nati ona l, Ltd. v . National D is posal Se rvic e, 33 6 N
. E.2 d 138, 14 3 (Ill C t. A p p . 197 5) (c itin g 1 1-1 9-1 ); C ity o f D e ca t urv. WasteHauling, Inc. , 5 0 9 N. E. 2 d 7 1 6 , 7 19 ( I l l

. Ct
. App
. 1987 ) ( ci ti ng 11

- 19- 1)
. I n contr ast, pla i nti ff s have not ci ted to a s i ngl e Illino i s ca se that sugge sts the pow erto m ake th ese s o r ts o f co nt r ac ts f al l s unde r § 5. Thus , we are sat i sfi ed that the m unici pal i ti es’ autho ri ty to enteri nto these co ntra cts com es f ro m § 1. Pl ai nti ff s’ o therar gum en t i s that whateverautho ri ty m unici pal i ti es have to m ake co ntra cts u n d er § 1, i t doe s not i ncl ud e the power t o m ake excl usi ve con tracts w hen r ecyc l abl es ar e invol ved. Pl ai nti ff s cl ai m that re cyclabl es ar e be i ng pl aced i n the ro l l

- offdum pster s; th er ef or e, the m unici pal i ti es cannot m ake excl usi ve co nt r ac ts f or th e r o l l

- o ff s’ r emov al

. Aga i n, the i r a r g um en t hangs o n § 5
. They a rgue thatunder the cano n o fs ta tu to r y c o ns truct i o n in pari m ater ia , the b r o ad g r an t ofpow eri n § 1 to co ntra ct forthe col l ecti on or fi nal d i s p o s i t i o n o f“ g a rb a g e , r e fu s e a n d a s h e s ” i s c i r c u msc rib ed by th e la n gu ag e in § 5 t h at “[m ]at er ial th at is i ntended or col l ecte d to be r ecyc l ed is notga rba ge, refuse or ash es.” 65 I L C S 5/11-19-5. Th at can on of i nt erpreta ti on s i m plym eans th at we i nter pret sta tutes d ealing w ith th e sam e sub j ect (here, trash) “w ith referen c e t o on e a n ot h er to giv e t h em h ar m on iou s e ffec t.” P eoplev. M cCa rty, 858 N
. E
. 2d 15, 31 (I ll

. 2006). Readi ngthe l a ngua g e i n § 5 the wa y p l a i nt i ff s u r ge does n ot creat e a har m oni ous e ffect w i thi n the A ct’ s s ubsect i ons; i nstea d, i t pr ese nts a n uncert ai n and confusedN o. 10

- 2568 7

Plai nti ff s have not all eg ed i n the com plaint, or ar gued here 2 or be l ow, thatthe m uni c i pal i t i es ha v e m ade c ont ra c t s f or the re m oval ofwas t e tha t is e xe m pt ed un der § 2 a nd thus beyo nd the m uni c i pal i t i es ’ power t o c ont ra c t
. And our opi ni on in n o w ay spe ak s to suc h co ntr acts. sta tutor y s chem e. A fterautho ri zi ng m unici pal i ti es to enteri n to contra cts f orthe dispos alo f“g arbage , r efuse, and ashes” i n § 1 , t h e l egi sl atur e defi ned each o fthes e te r m s i n § 2 , whi chi s ti tl ed “D efi ni ti o ns . ” Underpl ainti ff s’ theo ry, the l anguage i n § 5 w oul d r edefi ne those defini tions by excl ud i ng r ecyc l abl es f ro m the defini ti on of“g arbage , r efu se, and ashes

. ” W hen the I l l i noi s l egi sl ature i ntended to excl ud e a waste pr oduct fro m “g arbag e, re fuse, and ashes , ” i t e xpressly s tat ed that exem pti on i n § 2 ’ s defi ni ti o ns . S pec i fi ca l l y, afte r de fi ni ngr efus e, the leg isla tu re ex p re ss ly st at ed : but r efuse doe s n ot m ean e ar th and w ast es f ro m b u ild in g op er at ion s, n or sh all it in c lu d e s olid was te s r es ul tingf r o m i ndus tr i alpro ce ss es and manuf actur i ng o perat i ons such as f oo d proces si ng wastes, boi l er - house ci nd er s, l um ber, scr aps and shavings. 2 H ad I l l i noi s int ended to a l so exem pt r ecyc l abl es f ro m th e d efin itio n of “g arb ag e, re fu s e , a n d as h es ,” it c ou ld h av e e as ily d on e s o in th e d efin itio n s s ec tio n . Ye t it did not, and thi s neg ate s pl ai nti ff s’ ar gum ent tha t § 5 m od ifies § 2’s d efin itio n an d th e p ow er gra n te d m u n ic ip alit ies in § 1. See U nite d State s v. D avis , 47 1 F
. 3d 783, 787 ( 7th Ci r. 20 06) ( noti ng the l egi sl atur e has m ade it cl ea r tha t i fi t w an ts to make a s pec i fi c po i nti n the law , i t know s how to).8 N o. 10

- 2568 N o t o nl y do es tha t cuta g ains t pl ai nt if f s’ a r g um en t, b ut als o re ad in g th e sta tu te s th e w ay p lain tiffs u rg e w o u ld re nd erso m e of the l anguage i n § 2 superfl uous. Refuse in c l u d e s su c h ite m s a s “ p ap er ,” “c ar to n s,” “b ox es ,”

“ met a l s , ” “ t i n c a ns , ” “ met a l furni t ur e , ” a nd “ g l ass . ” Id. Al l o f th e s e th i n g s a r e wh a t we wo u l d c o mmo n l y t hi nk ofas “r ecyc l abl es, ” but they ar e cl ear l y c onsi dered re fuse und er § 2. Thu s, pla i nti ff s’ re adingw ou ld ei ther lead to confusi on about w hat const i tutes re fuse or it w ou ld re n d er su p er flu ou s th e d elin ea tio n o f“p ap er ,” “gl ass , ” a n d o th er such i tem s in the defini ti on o fr efuse. C onnecti cut N at. Ba nk v. G erm ain , 50 3 U.S
. 24 9, 25 3 ( 1992 ) ( “[ C]our ts sh oul d disf avo r i nter preta ti ons ofst atute s th at rend er l an gu age su p erfl uo us . ”). M o r e o v e r, th e s t a t u t o r y s c h e me ma k e s s e n s e wh e n t he l i ne “[ m ] ate ri althati s intended or col l ecte d to be re c yc led is n otga rb ag e, re fu se or a sh es ” is rea d in conte xt o f§ 5. M unici pal i ties can enact or dinances that p ro vide f orexcl usi ve m etho ds f ordi sposi ng o f garba ge, refuse, and ashe s. For exa m p le, th ey can requ ire th a ti to n l y b e p u t i n a l a n d fi l l o r i n c i n e r a t e d

. T h e s a me cannot be done with r ecyc l abl es. They a re di ffer ent. Once cer tai n cat egori es ofdi sposab l es ar e desi gnate d as r ec y cl ab l es , the y a r e no t m ea ntt o be puti nt o l an dfi l l s, a nd und er§ 5 a m u n icipal i ty does not have the power to p r e s c r ib e a n e x c l u s i v e me a n s f o r d i s p o s i ngo fth e m. R at h er , I llin ois h as a c om p l e x s ys te m u n d er th e Illino is En vi ro nm en ta l Pro tect i on Agency that deal s with re cy-N o. 10

- 2568 9

The p rec is e i nter play betw een the Act and the s tatutes 3 g ov ern ing the E nv iron m en tal P ro tection A g en cy an d its author i t y ove r m uni c i pal i t i es i s be yond the que s t i ons p resen ted her e, and n o t h i ng in ou r op inio n sh ou ld b e rea d to e x pr e s s a n op i ni ono n i t
. Th e i s s ue h a s n otbe e n br i e fe d. cl i ng. See 41 5 I L C S 1 5/ 1, ets eq . (W es t Su p p . 201 0); Id. 20 /1 ,

3 et seq. ( W est S u p p . 20 10)
. Giv en the subj ect m att ero f§ 5 and the br oad auth or i ty ofI l l i noi s’ s Envi ro nm entalPro

tectio n Age nc y o ve r r ec y cl i ngpr o g r ams, the l i ne “[ m] a t e r i a l tha ti s i nt e nd e d o r c o l l e c t e d t o b e r e cycl ed i s no t g arbage , refu se o r a sh es ” m ak es s en se i n the c on te x t o f § 5. D o la n v . P o s t a l Ser. , 54 6 U.S
. 48 1, 48 6 ( 2006 ) ( “I nter preta tio n of a word orphrase depend s upon read ing the w hole statu tory tex t, con s id e r ing the pu rp ose an d cont ex t of th e statu te.”). I n sum , tr ansposi ng the l anguage f ro m § 5 to th e re st of t h e A c t d oe s n ota l l e v i at e a m b igu ity ; in st ea d , i t w ou ld ei therr ender c er tai n l anguage superfl uous o r cre ate anom alies and unexplained dist i ncti ons i n the w ay re fuse i s defined

. I n contr ast, r eadi ng the l anguage “[ m ] ate ri al th at i s intended or col l ecte d to be r ecyc l ed i s no t g arba g e, r efus e o r ashe s” wi th i n the c o nt ex t o fthe § 5

— and confi ned to § 5

— I l l i n o i s ’ s s t a t u t o r y s c h e me re m ain s c lear

. Thus, we rej ect pla i nti ff s’ ar gum ent that the l anguage i n § 5 sho uld be r ead to m odi fy the r esto f the Act.10 N o. 10

- 2568 B. T he ne xti ss ue i s whethe r the s ta te
- ac ti o n do ct r i ne shi el ds t he m unici pal i ti es f ro m anti tr ust l aw wh en the y cre ate m onopol i es f orthe co l l ecti on a nd di sposi ti on o f g arba g e, r efus e, a nd a sh es unde r § 1
. W e l o o kt o the st at u te an d as k t w o q u es tio n s: firs t, w h et h er it au th o r i ze s th e ch al l en g ed co nduc t; s ec o nd, whethe r the an ti

- co m pet i ti ve e ffec ts a r e a f o r ese eabl e r es ul t o fthe au th or iza tio n . LaS al l eNat
. Bank, 7 77F
. 2d at 381. I fthe answ er s t o both questi ons are ye s, then the s tat e i ntended the m unic ip aliti es’ “a cti on t o be i m m une fro m anti tr ust chal l enge. ” U ni ty Ve nt ure s v. Cty. of La ke, 84 1 F.2d 770 , 777 (7th C ir. 1988). S e c t i o n 1 a u th o r i z e s mu n i c i p a l i t i e s t o c o n t r a c t f o r t he col l ecti on a nd d isp osi ti on o fga rba ge, r efuse, and ashes

. The re m ai ni n g questi on i s whether the s tat e a uthor i zed these contr acts und er a pol i cy “ ‘ to displ ace com peti ti on w i th r egul ati on o r m onopol y publ i c se rv i ce. ’ ” Tow n o f Halli e, 471 U
. S. at 39 ( quoti ng Laf aye t t ev. La
. Power& Light Co. , 43 5 U.S
. 38 9, 41 3 ( 1978 ) )
. In thi s co ntext, l egi sl atur es ar en ’t re q u ire d to a r tic u lat e h ow co m p et itio n w ill b e d isp lac ed

. Id. at42

- 43. A l l thatm att er s i s whether “t h e a n ti

- c o m p et itiv e e ffec ts w ou ld logic ally res u lt f ro m the author i ty to re gul ate
. ” Cam pb e l l v. Ci ty of Chi cago , 823 F.2d 1182, 1184 (7th C ir. 1987). W as te an d its reg u lat ion, l ike se w er se rv ice s, re m ain a t ra dit i onalar ea ofl oca l co ncer n . C onsum ers C o. v. C ity of Chi cago , 31 3 I l l

. 40 8, 41 3-14 ( 1924 )
. Oft en m unici pal i ti es u se a sin gle h au ler for t h e c olle c tio n of tr as h

. Id. at 41 3. Inth e c on te x t o f m u n i c i p a l p ow er s, it is g en er ally und er sto od that t he autho ri ty to contr act conte m pla tesN o. 10

- 2568 11 th e p ow er to cr ea te ex c lu si v e co n tr ac ts
. So uth ern D isposal, Inc. v. Tex. WasteMgm t. , 1 61 F.3d 125 9, 1263 ( 10th Cir. 1998 ) ( noting “a l though the enab l i ng st atute does not expli ci tl y a uthor i ze excl usi ve contr acts , su c h ag re em en ts are ‘a foreseea ble result’ ofthe gen eral sta t ut ory au th or iz a tio n to co n tr ac t” ); LaS al l eNat
. Bank, 77 7 F
. 2d at 38 1- 82 ( fi ndi ngthe s ta tu te a utho r i ze d e xc l us i ve c o ntr acts wh en i t pr ovi ded thatthe counti es “m ay enteri nto and per f or m contr acts
. . . w i th any m unici pal [ i ty] ”)
. Thus, w hen the l egi sl atur e pr ovi des thatm unici pal i ti es m ay co nt r ac t f o r th e co l l ec ti o n an d di spo si ti o n o ftrash, th os e c on tr ac ts w ill ofte n be ex c lu siv e, a m on op oly w ill b e c re at ed , an d an ti-c om p et itiv e e ffec ts w ill ne c es sa rily follo w . See Spr i ngs Am b ulanceSe r v. , Inc . v. Ci ty of Ranc ho , 74 5 F .2d 12 70 , 127 3 (9 th C ir. 19 84 ); Tal v. Hogan , 45 3 F
. 3d 12 44, 1 25 9 ( 10 th C ir. 2 00 6) ( au th o r i tyt o make c o ntr acts has f or ese eabl e a nti

- com peti ti ve effect)
. There

f or e, we hol d that the anti

- com peti ti ve effects ar e a f or ese ea b le re su lt of Illin ois ’s a u th or iza t i o n for m u n icip ali ti es to m ake co ntrac ts f orthe col l ecti on a nd di sposi ti on ofga rba ge, r efuse, and a shes. A ccor dingl y, the sta teacti on doct rine appli es.

III
. In sum , we rej ect pla i nti ff s’ ar gum ents that § 5 co n tr ols th e I l l inoi s m uni ci pal i ti es ’ po wert o c o nt r ac t f o r the col l ecti on a nd di sposi tio n o fga rba ge, r efuse, and ashes

. W e a l so rej ect pla i nti ff s’ ar gum ent th at t h e sam e s ecti on c irc u m sc rib es the defi ni ti ons of“g arbage , r efuse, and ashes” as tho se ter m s a re u se d in § 1 and § 2.12 N o. 10

- 2568 Fur the r, we fi nd tha t the s t a t e - a c t i o n do c t r i ne a pp l i es to the m unici pal i ti es’ pow erto m ake excl usi ve contr acts f o r the c o l l ec ti o n a nd di spo si ti o n o fg arba g e, r efus e, a nd ash es. T he refore, th e j ud gm en t of th e d istri ct cou rt i s A FFI RMED .

3- 14- 11