Opinion ID: 788374
Heading Depth: 2
Heading Rank: 4

Heading: Pike Balancing Test

Text: 29 We now turn to the Pike balancing test to determine whether the flow control ordinances excessively burden interstate commerce. 19 For this analysis, because plaintiffs do not have standing to challenge the ordinances as facially discriminatory against out-of-state interests, we ignore the fact that the ordinances would not permit them to ship waste generated within the Region out of state. 30 An evenhanded ordinance, i.e., one that does not facially discriminate against out-of-state interests and only incidentally affects interstate commerce, will be upheld unless the burden it imposes on interstate commerce is clearly excessive in relation to the putative local benefits of the ordinance. Pike, 90 S.Ct. at 847. To make this assessment, we consider the nature of the local interest and whether alternative means could achieve that interest with less impact on interstate commerce: 31 If a legitimate local purpose is found, then the question becomes one of degree. And the extent of the burden that will be tolerated will of course depend on the nature of the local interest involved, and on whether it could be promoted as well with a lesser impact on interstate activities. Id. We first look for a legitimate public purpose that defendants intended to advance by implementing flow control. Defendants indeed have a legitimate local purpose: to ensure the economic viability of their landfill. See U & I Sanitation v. City of Columbus, 205 F.3d 1063, 1070 (8th Cir.2000) (recognizing economic viability as a legitimate local purpose in the context of a waste flow control ordinance). 32 Next, we identify the burden imposed on interstate commerce. To succeed in a challenge to a regulation under the Pike balancing test, the challenging party must show that the regulation has a disparate impact on interstate commerce. Automated Salvage Transp., Inc. v. Wheelabrator Envtl. Sys., Inc., 155 F.3d 59, 75 (2d Cir.1998). The incidental burdens to which Pike refers are the burdens on interstate commerce that exceed the burdens on intrastate commerce. Id. (internal quotation and citation omitted). Where a regulation does not have this disparate impact on interstate commerce, then we must conclude that ... [it] has not imposed any incidental burdens on interstate commerce and, therefore, that it passes the Pike test. Id. (internal quotation and citation omitted). 33 The flow control ordinances here do not have a disparate impact on interstate commerce; consequently, plaintiffs fail in their attempt to show that the ordinances do not pass the Pike test. The only evidence of an interstate burden is the effect on plaintiffs' interstate contracts: the flow control ordinances, because they will raise plaintiffs' costs within the Region and will make plaintiffs relatively less competitive, impose a burden on plaintiffs' interstate commerce by affecting the portion of plaintiffs' interstate contracts that involve areas beyond Mississippi. The burdens imposed by the ordinances on interstate commerce, however, are no greater than those imposed on intrastate commerce. Plaintiffs' contracts that are wholly within Mississippi, and even wholly within the Region itself, will also be affected as plaintiffs' costs increase within the Region and plaintiffs, thereby, become relatively less competitive. In fact, the burden imposed on wholly intrastate contracts, particularly those that are contained wholly within the Region, will likely be greater than that imposed by the flow control ordinances on plaintiffs' interstate contracts. The interstate contracts — which are presumably larger than plaintiffs' contracts that are contained entirely within Mississippi or the Region — will likely be more able to spread the increased costs over a wider base of business than will plaintiffs' smaller contracts. We fail to see how the ordinances will in this respect impose a greater burden on interstate commerce than they will on intrastate commerce. 34 Moreover, so far as they affect BFI and Waste Management, the ordinances do not inhibit the flow of goods (or waste) interstate. Int'l Truck & Engine Corp. v. Bray, 372 F.3d 717, 727 (5th Cir.2004) (A statute imposes a burden when it inhibits the flow of goods interstate.). Furthermore, while the ordinances may have the effect of shifting some business away from plaintiffs, as the ordinances increase their costs and make them relatively less competitive, this result does not mean that the ordinances burden interstate commerce: [T]he dormant Commerce Clause `protects the interstate market, not particular interstate firms.' Id. (quoting Exxon Corp. v. Governor of Md., 437 U.S. 117, 98 S.Ct. 2207, 2215, 57 L.Ed.2d 91 (1978)) (stating that the fact that a regulation might cause truck purchasers to turn to other competing truck manufacturers did not burden interstate commerce). If plaintiffs lose some of their interstate contracts because of their higher costs within the Region, the ordinances would not prohibit another garbage collector from entering into a similar interstate contract, whether that garbage collector was from Mississippi or some other state. 35 Because plaintiffs have not shown that the ordinances disparately impact interstate commerce relative to intrastate commerce, their Pike challenge that the ordinances excessively burden interstate commerce fails.