Fort Gratiot Sanitary Landfill, Inc. v. Michigan Department of Natural Resources
United States Supreme Court
504 U.S. 353, 112 S. Ct. 2019, 119 L. Ed. 2d 139 (1992)
- Written by Galina Abdel Aziz , JD
Facts
The Solid Waste Management Act (SWMA) prohibited any county from accepting the disposal of solid waste that was not generated within that county unless the county’s solid-waste management plan explicitly authorized it. In February 1989, Fort Gratiot Sanitary Landfill, Inc. (landfill) (plaintiff) applied to St. Clair County (county) for the authority to accept up to 1,750 tons of out-of-state solid waste per day. However, the county’s management plan did not authorize the acceptance of out-of-state solid waste. The landfill sued the Michigan Department of Natural Resources (Michigan) (defendant), alleging that the SWMA violated the Commerce Clause of the United States Constitution. Michigan argued that the SWMA did not discriminate against interstate commerce because it treated out-of-county waste in the same manner as out-of-state waste and argued that the SWMA was not clearly excessive relative to the local benefit. Michigan also argued that the SWMA was a health and safety regulation that was necessary to enable individual counties to create adequate plans for the safe disposal of waste. The landfill sought a judgment declaring the SWMA unconstitutional and enjoining its enforcement.
Rule of Law
Issue
Holding and Reasoning (Stevens, J.)
Dissent (Rehnquist, C.J.)
What to do next…
Here's why 832,000 law students have relied on our case briefs:
- Written by law professors and practitioners, not other law students. 46,500 briefs, keyed to 994 casebooks. Top-notch customer support.
- The right amount of information, includes the facts, issues, rule of law, holding and reasoning, and any concurrences and dissents.
- Access in your classes, works on your mobile and tablet. Massive library of related video lessons and high quality multiple-choice questions.
- Easy to use, uniform format for every case brief. Written in plain English, not in legalese. Our briefs summarize and simplify; they don’t just repeat the court’s language.
