Court Opinion

ID: 9493110
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-05 14:58:30.746395+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T17:55:39.598814
License: Public Domain

CLAY, Circuit Judge,
concurring.
I agree with the majority’s reasoning and holding as far as it goes, but I would proceed to hold that the County also violated the Commerce Clause by designating Monarch as the exclusive waste hauler and processor for municipal waste. It appears abundantly clear on the record below, and not subject to serious dispute, that the County instituted a comprehensive monopolistic scheme by which it used its regulatory power to favor a single provider of waste removal, disposal and processing services, and by so doing eliminated other potential local and interstate waste services providers from the relevant market. I would not attempt to truncate the analysis with regard to segments of the local waste disposal process, as does the majority opinion, inasmuch as the County awarded a single monopoly to Monarch with respect to all aspects of the waste disposal business in Warren County.
The ordinance and finance agreement favor a single waste hauler and processor to the detriment of both in-state and out-'of-state competitors by forcing all who generate waste in Bowling Green to use the services of Monarch at a rate designated by Warren County and Monarch. Giv*718en the way in which vertical integration of the waste disposal services are provided by Monarch pursuant to its arrangement with the County for waste collection, hauling, processing and disposal, and given the comprehensiveness of the contractual arrangement between the County and Monarch, I would hold that the County violated the Commerce Clause by designating Monarch as the exclusive waste hauler and processor for municipal waste — notwithstanding the district court’s inappropriate failure to address the issue. I concur with the majority opinion in all other respects.