## Facts

- Oneida and Herkimer Counties in New York helped create the Oneida-Herkimer Solid Waste Management Authority, a public benefit corporation, to manage solid waste after environmental and regulatory problems with local disposal practices.
- The Authority agreed to process and manage all solid waste generated within the two counties, financing operations through “tipping fees,” with the Counties responsible for shortfalls.
- To secure the Authority’s revenue and avoid County liability, the Counties enacted “flow control” ordinances.
- The ordinances required private haulers to obtain permits to collect waste and required all solid waste generated in the Counties to be delivered to Authority-owned facilities.
- Private haulers asserted they could dispose of waste at out-of-state facilities for less absent the ordinances.
- The haulers sued under 42 U.S.C. § 1983, claiming the ordinances violated the dormant Commerce Clause.
- The district court enjoined the ordinances as unconstitutional based on prior precedent invalidating a similar requirement benefiting a private facility.
- The Second Circuit reversed, distinguishing laws favoring public facilities from those favoring private facilities.
- The Supreme Court granted review and affirmed the Second Circuit.

## Issues

1. Whether county ordinances requiring delivery of all locally generated solid waste to publicly owned local facilities discriminate against interstate commerce in violation of the dormant Commerce Clause.
2. If the ordinances are not discriminatory, whether any incidental burden on interstate commerce is clearly excessive in relation to the local benefits under Pike balancing.

## Decision

- The Supreme Court affirmed, holding 6–3 that the ordinances did not violate the dormant Commerce Clause.
- The Court held the ordinances were not discriminatory because they treated in-state and out-of-state private businesses the same and favored a public entity rather than local private interests.
- Applying Pike, the Court held any incidental burden on interstate commerce was not clearly excessive compared to the ordinances’ financial, health, and environmental benefits.
- The dissent would have applied prior flow-control precedent to invalidate the ordinances and rejected the public/private distinction as outcome-determinative.

## Legal Principles

- Dormant Commerce Clause “discrimination” requires differential treatment of in-state and out-of-state economic interests that benefits the former and burdens the latter.
- A law that directs business to a publicly owned facility, while treating all private firms (in-state and out-of-state) the same, is not discriminatory in the usual dormant Commerce Clause sense.
- If a challenged regulation is nondiscriminatory, it is evaluated under Pike v. Bruce Church: incidental burdens on interstate commerce are permissible unless clearly excessive in relation to the regulation’s putative local benefits.
- Local regulation of solid waste disposal is a traditional government function, and courts give substantial leeway to local legislative judgments when the regulation serves public health, environmental compliance, and related public services.
- Cost internalization to local voters may support upholding a nondiscriminatory local regulation against dormant Commerce Clause challenge.

## Conclusion

The Court upheld flow-control ordinances requiring delivery of all county waste to publicly owned facilities, concluding they did not discriminate against interstate commerce and survived Pike balancing because the local financial, health, and environmental benefits outweighed any incidental burdens on interstate commerce.


United Haulers Ass'n, Inc. v. Oneida-Herkimer Solid Waste Mgmt. Auth., 550 U.S. 330 (2007)