## Facts

- Oregon Waste Systems, Inc. operated an Oregon landfill that accepted solid waste generated both in Oregon and in other states.
- Oregon enacted a statutory surcharge on solid waste generated out of state and disposed of in Oregon, directing that the charge be based on governmental disposal costs not otherwise paid for.
- By rule, Oregon set the out-of-state surcharge at $2.25 per ton.
- Oregon separately imposed a fee on in-state waste disposed of in Oregon, capped at $0.85 per ton.
- Petitioners challenged the surcharge and enabling statutes, alleging a violation of the Commerce Clause.
- Oregon courts upheld the scheme as a permissible compensatory fee.

## Issues

1. Whether Oregon’s per-ton surcharge on disposal of out-of-state solid waste, higher than the fee on in-state waste, facially discriminates against interstate commerce under the dormant Commerce Clause.
2. Whether the surcharge can be sustained as a valid compensatory fee or tax tied to identifiable costs and equivalent to a substantially similar charge on intrastate commerce.

## Decision

- The Supreme Court reversed, holding 7–2 that Oregon’s surcharge was facially discriminatory and invalid under the dormant Commerce Clause.
- The Court ruled that the surcharge imposed a higher charge solely because the waste originated out of state, taxing the transaction more heavily when it crossed state lines.
- Because the law was facially discriminatory, it was subject to a virtually per se rule of invalidity, not Pike balancing.
- Oregon failed to justify the discrimination as a valid compensatory charge because it did not show the surcharge was the rough equivalent of an identifiable and substantially similar in-state charge tied to demonstrable added costs.
- Oregon also failed to show that legitimate local interests could not be served by reasonable nondiscriminatory alternatives.

## Legal Principles

- A law that favors in-state economic interests over out-of-state interests is discriminatory under the dormant Commerce Clause and is virtually per se invalid.
- Facial discrimination triggers strict scrutiny: the state must show the measure serves a legitimate local purpose that cannot be adequately served by reasonable nondiscriminatory alternatives.
- A compensatory tax defense requires proof that the discriminatory levy is the rough equivalent of an identifiable and substantially similar tax on intrastate commerce, supported by evidence of comparable burdens or costs.
- Differentials based solely on geographic origin, without a demonstrated equivalence to measurable cost differences, do not qualify as compensatory and violate the dormant Commerce Clause.

## Conclusion

The Court held that Oregon’s higher surcharge on out-of-state waste disposal discriminated against interstate commerce on its face and was unconstitutional because Oregon could not establish a valid compensatory rationale or the absence of reasonable nondiscriminatory alternatives.


Oregon Waste Sys., Inc. v. Dep’t of Env’t Quality, 511 U.S. 93 (1994)