ELR Citation: ELR 20683
No(s). 96-1179 (8th Cir. Jan 27, 1997)

The court holds that a local solid waste management ordinance that requires landfill owners who wish to operate solid waste disposal processing storage sites to apply to county commissioners for a permit does not violate landfill owners' substantive due process rights, nor does it constitute an illegal bill of attainder or violate Missouri state law. The court first holds that a violation of state law does not amount to the kind of truly irrational governmental action that gives rise to a substantive due process claim. Thus, even if the ordinance is substantially inconsistent with state law and therefore without basis in state law, the landfill owners nevertheless fail to state a federal substantive due process claim and dismissal below was proper. Next, the court holds that in adjudicating facial substantive due process challenges to a zoning or land use ordinance, the court does not inquire into the methods and motives behind its passage. The court asks only whether a conceivable rational relationship exists between the ordinance and legitimate governmental ends. The court then finds as a matter of law that such relationship exists in this case and holds that the district court properly dismissed the landfill owners' substantive due process claim for failure to state a claim. The court next finds that by requiring permits before one may collect, transport, process, store, and dispose of solid waste in the county, the ordinance in this case regulates certain activities that can pose serious hazards to the public welfare. The ordinance does not single out the landfill owners, and therefore the court holds that it cannot be characterized as a bill of attainder. The court also holds that the ordinance is not punitive. Although the landfill owners will not escape regulation altogether, they are not foreclosed from altering their plans to come into compliance with the ordinance and thereby obtain a permit to operate the landfill. Therefore, they do not meet the historical test for punishment under the U.S. Constitution's Bill of Attainder Clause. Additionally, the burdens placed on permit applicants, in light of the legislative purposes behind the ordinance of protecting health, safety, and welfare, are not punishment as prohibited by the Bill of Attainder Clause under the functional test. Finally, the ordinance is not punitive under the motivational test. The fact that the landfill owners' expansion efforts turned the lawmakers' attention to the issue of local environmental regulation does not make any subsequent tough environmental legislation a bill of attainder. Further, the commissioners have the authority to enact a solid waste disposal ordinance even more stringent than the state solid waste disposal laws.

Counsel for Plaintiffs
Elizabeth C. Carver
Bryan & Cave
One Metropolitan Sq.
211 N. Broadway, St. Louis MO 63102
(314) 259-2000

Counsel for Defendants
P. Dennis Barks
Berkemeyer & Barks
127 E. 4th St., Hermann MO 65041
(573) 486-3124

Before McMILLIAN, Circuit Judge, HENLEY, Senior Circuit Judge, and BOGUE,^* Senior District Judge.