Court Opinion

ID: 9426698
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-02 23:18:42.203113+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T17:23:02.502133
License: Public Domain

Mr. Justice Powell,
with whom The Chief Justice, Mr. Justice Stewart, and Mr. Justice Rehnquist
join, dissenting.
The Resource Conservation and Recovery Act of 1976, 42 U. S. C. § 6901 et seq. (1976 ed.), evidences a federal con*143cern with the growing problem of waste disposal in this country. This complex statute attempts to deal with this problem in a variety of ways. Because the impact of the statute will depend in part on the regulations promulgated under it, generalizations at this time as to the effect of the statute should be made with caution. But I do think it is abundantly clear from the text of the statute and from its legislative history that Congress did not intend to preempt state laws such as the one at issue here. In its report on the statute the House Committee on Interstate and Foreign Commerce recognized the existence of state laws similar to this New Jersey law. H. R. Rep. No. 94—1491, pp. 3, 10 (1976). The report explicitly disclaimed any pre-emptive intention.
“It is the Committee’s intention that federal assistance should be an incentive for state and local authorities to act to solve the discarded materials problem. At this time federal preemption of this problem is undesirable, inefficient and damaging to local initiative.” Id., at 33.
In view of this express disclaimer, I do not understand how the Court can assume that pre-emption remains an open question.
We should decide this case on the merits and not burden the parties and the Supreme Court of New Jersey by a remand which unnecessarily creates delay, expense, and uncertainty.