ELR Citation: ELR 21303
No(s). 88-5046 (3d Cir. Sep 8, 1988)

The court holds that a regulation issued under the New Jersey Solid Waste Management Act requiring solid waste haulers to deposit all trash collected in a county at a specified transfer station does not violate the Commerce Clause. The court first holds that the district court had subject matter jurisdiction, because federal courts may enjoin enforcement of unconstitutional state laws.

The court holds that the plaintiff has not met its burden of showing that the regulation is protectionist in purpose. The state's uncontested affidavits show that it serves several legitimate non-protectionist purposes relating to rational management of solid waste in the state. The court holds that the plaintiff has also failed to show actual discrimination against out-of-state competitors. The transfer station is a customer, not a competitor, of out-of-state landfills. To the extent that the transfer station deprives haulers of the ability to dispose of trash directly at landfills, this burden falls equally on in-state and out-of-state haulers operating in the county. The court notes that the regulation is based on the origin of the waste, not the origin of the hauler. The court holds that the higher disposal fees that the regulation imposes on the plaintiff are not a burdenon commerce. These fees ultimately fall on in-state, not out-of-state, residents. The court also holds that the plaintiff has not shown any effect on the interstate flow of goods. Trash enters interstate commerce when transported from the transfer station just as surely as when transported directly by the plaintiff. The court next holds that it need not evaluate the regulation by balancing its discriminatory burdens on interstate commerce against its local benefits, because the plaintiff has not shown any burden on interstate commerce. The court notes, however, that the regulation has substantial local benefits relating to efficient trash disposal. Finally, the court holds that once the defendants answered the allegations of the complaint with affidavits, the plaintiffs could not create a genuine issue of material fact on the issue of discrimination simply by referring to the complaint.

Counsel for Appellant
Robert S. Moraff, Steven T. Singer
Schwartz, Tobia & Stanziale
22 Crestmont Rd., Montclair NJ 07042
(201) 746-6000

Counsel for Appellees
W. Carey Edwards, Attorney General; Michael R. Clancy, Harley A. Williams, Deputy Attorneys General
Richard J. Hughs Justice Complex, Trenton NJ 08625
(609) 292-4925

Counsel for Appellee
Gaetano M. De Sapio, John P. Gallina
First Fidelity Bank Bldg., 96 Main St., P.O. Box 907, Flemington NJ 08822
(201) 788-2800

Before Scirica and Weis, JJ.