Document: 430 U.S. 141 97 S.Ct. 987 51 L.Ed.2d 224 CITY OF PHILADELPHIA et al., Appellants,v.State of NEW JERSEY al. No. 75-1150. Feb. 23, 1977. PER CURIAM. 1 This suit challenges the constitutionality a New Jersey statute prohibiting any person from bringing into "any solid or liquid waste which originated was collected outside territorial limits State" except garbage to be fed swine. 1973 N.J.Laws, c. 363. The Supreme Court held that Act not pre-empted by federal addressing questions disposal, Solid Waste Disposal 1965, 79 Stat. 997, 42 U.S.C. § 3251 seq. (1970 ed. and Supp. V), unconstitutional as discriminating against placing an undue burden on interstate commerce. Hackensack Meadowlands Dev. Comm'n v. Muncipal Landfill Authority, 68 N.J. 451, 348 A.2d 505 (1975). We noted probable jurisdiction April 5, 1976, 425 910, 96 1504, 47 760. 2 On October 21, Resource Conservation Recovery 90 2795, 6901 (1976 ed.), became law. parties at Court's request supplemented their briefs address question impact new Act. Appellants argue Federal displaces law, appellees it does pre-empt in way undercut validity legislation. While pre-emption state statutes is, course, ultimately under Supremacy Clause, U.S.Const., Art. VI, cl. 2, analysis issues depends primarily statutory constitutional interpretation. Therefore, is appropriate issue resolved before alleged discrimination commerce addressed. think we have views whether what extent 1976 pre-empts statute. judgment therefore vacated, case remanded for reconsideration light 3 So ordered. 4 Mr. Justice POWELL, with whom THE CHIEF JUSTICE, STEWART, REHNQUIST join, dissenting. 5 evidences concern growing problem disposal this country. complex attempts deal variety ways. Because will depend part regulations promulgated it, generalizations time effect should made caution. But I do abundantly clear text its legislative history Congress did intend preempt laws such one here. In report House Committee Interstate Foreign Commerce recognized existence similar H.R.Rep. 94-1491, pp. 3, 10 (1976); U.S.Code Cong. & Admin.News p. 6238. explicitly disclaimed preemptive intention. 6 "It Committee's intention assistance incentive local authorities act solve discarded materials problem. At preemption undesirable, inefficient, damaging initiative." Id., 33 6271. 7 view express disclaimer, understand how can assume remains open question. 8 decide merits remand unnecessarily creates delay, expense, uncertainty.

Category: 7