Opinion ID: 3046278
Heading Depth: 3
Heading Rank: 2

Heading: Fort Gratiot (1992)

Text: While H.P. Hood involved restricting market participation, Fort Gratiot 29 The Supreme Court also rejected the Commissioner’s claim that the licensing statute was authorized by and part of the federal regulatory scheme for the milk market. H.P. Hood, 336 U.S. at 540–45, 69 S. Ct. at 666–68. 30 Case: 11-10475 Date Filed: 12/28/2012 Page: 31 of 81 Sanitary Landfill, Inc. v. Michigan Department of Natural Resources, 504 U.S. 353, 112 S. Ct. 2019 (1992), shows that restricting the movement of articles of interstate commerce to protect local businesses from competition also impermissibly discriminates against interstate commerce. The Fort Gratiot Court invalidated a Michigan statute that allowed a county to accept only waste generated in that county and to restrict the import of solid waste into that county from both in-state and out-of-state (the “Waste Import Restrictions”).30 Id. at 361, 112 S. Ct. at 2024. Plaintiff Fort Gratiot operated a landfill in St. Clair County, Michigan. Id. at 357, 112 S. Ct. at 2022. St. Clair County denied Fort Gratiot’s application for authority to accept out-of-state waste at its landfill. Id. Fort Gratiot sued, claiming the Waste Import Restrictions violated the dormant Commerce Clause. The Supreme Court struck down the Waste Import Restrictions, which 30 In 1988, Michigan amended its Solid Waste Management Act to provide that: “A person shall not accept for disposal solid waste . . . that is not generated in the county in which the disposal area is located unless the acceptance of solid waste . . . that is not generated in the county is explicitly authorized in the approved county solid waste management plan.” Mich. Comp. Laws § 299.413a (1991). In addition, the amended statute provided: “In order for a disposal area to serve the disposal needs of another county, state, or country, the service . . . must be explicitly authorized in the approved solid waste management plan of the receiving county.” Id. § 299.430(2) (1991). 31 Case: 11-10475 Date Filed: 12/28/2012 Page: 32 of 81 applied to both in-state and out-of-state businesses. The Supreme Court concluded first that “[s]olid waste, even if it has no value, is an article of commerce.” Id. at 359, 112 S. Ct. at 2023. The Court next found that the Waste Import Restrictions were discriminatory because they afforded “local waste producers complete protection from competition from out-of-state waste producers who seek to use local waste disposal areas.” Id. at 361, 112 S. Ct. at 2024. Michigan argued that the Waste Import Restrictions “do not discriminate against interstate commerce on their face or in effect because they treat waste from other Michigan counties no differently than waste from other States.” Id. Rejecting this argument, the Supreme Court instructed that “a State (or one of its political subdivisions) may not avoid the strictures of the Commerce Clause by curtailing the movement of articles of commerce through subdivisions of the State, rather than through the State itself.” Id. In other words, “‘a burden imposed by a State upon interstate commerce is not to be sustained simply because the statute imposing it applies alike to the people of all the States, including the people of the State enacting such statute.’” Id. at 361, 112 S. Ct. at 2025 (quoting Brimmer v. Rebman, 138 U.S. 78, 83, 11 S. Ct. 213, 214 (1891)). The Supreme Court determined Michigan had failed to show that its Waste 32 Case: 11-10475 Date Filed: 12/28/2012 Page: 33 of 81 Import Restrictions “further health and safety concerns that cannot be adequately served by nondiscriminatory alternatives.” Id. at 366, 112 S. Ct. at 2027. The Court rejected Michigan’s argument that the Waste Import Restrictions were necessary to enable counties to plan for the disposal of future waste. Id. The Supreme Court explained that “Michigan could attain that objective without discriminating between in- and out-of-state waste,” by, for example, limiting “the amount of waste that landfill operators may accept each year.” Id. at 367, 112 S. Ct. at 2027.