haulers
association
et
al
solid
waste
management
authority
et
argued
january
decided
april
traditionally
municipalities
respondent
counties
disposed
solid
wastes
often
via
landfills
operated
without
permits
violation
state
regulations
facing
environmental
crisis
uneasy
relationship
local
waste
management
companies
counties
requested
state
created
respondent
authority
counties
authority
agreed
authority
manage
solid
waste
counties
private
haulers
pick
citizens
trash
authority
process
sort
send
disposal
authority
also
provide
services
including
recycling
authority
operating
costs
debt
service
recouped
tipping
fees
charged
counties
must
make
difference
avoid
liability
counties
enacted
flow
control
ordinances
requiring
private
haulers
obtain
permits
collect
solid
waste
counties
deliver
waste
authority
sites
petitioners
trade
association
individual
haulers
filed
suit
alleging
flow
control
ordinances
violate
commerce
clause
discriminating
interstate
commerce
submitted
evidence
without
ordinances
associated
tipping
fees
dispose
solid
waste
facilities
far
less
ruling
haulers
favor
district
held
nearly
flow
control
laws
categorically
rejected
carbone
clarkstown
held
ordinance
forcing
haulers
deliver
waste
particular
private
facility
discriminated
interstate
commerce
reversing
second
circuit
held
carbone
dormant
commerce
clause
precedents
allow
distinction
laws
benefit
public
opposed
private
facilities
held
judgment
affirmed
affirmed
chief
justice
delivered
opinion
respect
parts
concluding
counties
flow
control
ordinances
treat
private
business
interests
exactly
ones
discriminate
interstate
commerce
pp
determine
whether
law
violates
dormant
commerce
clause
first
asks
whether
discriminates
face
interstate
commerce
context
simply
means
differential
treatment
economic
interests
benefits
former
burdens
latter
oregon
waste
systems
department
environmental
quality
discriminatory
laws
motivated
simple
economic
protectionism
subject
virtually
per
se
rule
invalidity
philadelphia
new
jersey
overcome
showing
means
advance
legitimate
local
purpose
maine
taylor
carbone
control
case
carbone
involved
flow
control
ordinance
requiring
nonhazardous
solid
waste
within
town
deposited
upon
payment
tipping
fee
transfer
facility
run
private
contractor
agreement
town
see
dissent
opined
ostensibly
private
transfer
station
essentially
municipal
facility
distinction
saved
ordinance
favoring
local
government
different
favoring
particular
private
company
majority
failure
comment
distinction
prove
haulers
contend
majority
agreed
dissent
characterization
facility
thought
difference
dormant
commerce
clause
laws
favoring
private
entities
favoring
public
ones
rather
carbone
majority
avoided
issue
transfer
station
private
therefore
question
whether
public
facilities
may
favored
properly
majority
viewed
ordinance
one
instance
local
processing
requirements
long
held
invalid
citing
six
local
processing
cases
involving
discrimination
favor
private
enterprise
extending
line
cases
cover
discrimination
favor
local
government
expected
said
thus
carbone
regarded
decided
question
pp
flow
control
ordinances
case
discriminate
interstate
commerce
compelling
reasons
justify
treating
laws
differently
laws
favoring
particular
private
businesses
competitors
ny
notion
discrimination
assumes
comparison
substantially
similar
entities
general
motors
tracy
whereas
government
important
responsibilities
protect
health
safety
welfare
citizens
set
apart
typical
private
business
cf
moreover
contrast
laws
favoring
business
competition
often
product
economic
protectionism
laws
favoring
local
government
may
directed
toward
number
legitimate
goals
unrelated
protectionism
ordinances
enable
counties
pursue
particular
policies
respect
waste
handling
treatment
allocating
costs
policies
citizens
businesses
according
volume
waste
generate
contrary
approach
treating
public
private
entities
dormant
commerce
clause
lead
unprecedented
unbounded
interference
courts
state
local
government
counties
citizens
left
entire
matter
waste
management
services
private
sector
case
regulation
undertook
discriminate
interstate
commerce
also
open
vest
responsibility
matter
government
adopt
flow
control
ordinances
support
government
effort
office
commerce
clause
control
voters
decision
regard
particularly
hesitant
interfere
waste
disposal
typically
traditionally
function
local
government
exercising
police
power
nothing
commerce
clause
vests
responsibility
policy
judgment
federal
judiciary
finally
dormant
commerce
clause
cases
often
find
discrimination
burden
state
regulation
falls
interests
outside
state
palpable
harm
imposed
ordinances
issue
expensive
trash
removal
likely
fall
upon
people
voted
laws
counties
citizens
reason
step
hand
local
businesses
victory
obtain
political
process
pp
roberts
delivered
opinion
except
part
souter
ginsburg
breyer
joined
opinion
full
scalia
filed
opinion
concurring
parts
thomas
filed
opinion
concurring
judgment
alito
filed
dissenting
opinion
stevens
kennedy
joined
haulers
association
et
petitioners
solid
waste
management
authority
et
al
writ
certiorari
appeals
second
circuit
april
chief
justice
roberts
delivered
opinion
except
part
flow
control
ordinances
require
trash
haulers
deliver
solid
waste
particular
waste
processing
facility
carbone
clarkstown
struck
commerce
clause
flow
control
ordinance
forced
haulers
deliver
waste
particular
private
processing
facility
case
face
flow
control
ordinances
quite
similar
one
invalidated
carbone
salient
difference
laws
issue
require
haulers
bring
waste
facilities
owned
operated
public
benefit
corporation
find
difference
constitutionally
significant
disposing
trash
traditional
government
activity
years
laws
favor
government
areas
treat
every
private
business
whether
exactly
discriminate
interstate
commerce
purposes
commerce
clause
applying
commerce
clause
test
reserved
regulations
discriminate
interstate
commerce
uphold
ordinances
incidental
burden
may
interstate
commerce
outweigh
benefits
confer
citizens
oneida
herkimer
counties
located
central
new
york
oneida
herkimer
counties
span
square
miles
home
residents
traditionally
city
town
village
within
counties
responsible
disposing
waste
many
relied
local
landfills
environmentally
responsible
fashion
others
counties
confronted
credibly
call
solid
waste
brief
respondents
many
local
landfills
operating
without
permits
violation
state
regulations
sixteen
ordered
close
remediate
surrounding
environment
costing
public
tens
millions
dollars
environmental
problems
culminated
federal
action
landfill
oneida
county
defendants
case
named
local
businesses
several
municipalities
school
districts
defendants
crisis
extended
beyond
health
safety
concerns
counties
uneasy
relationship
local
waste
management
companies
enduring
price
fixing
pervasive
overcharging
influence
organized
crime
dramatic
price
hikes
uncommon
example
county
contractor
doubled
waste
disposal
rate
six
weeks
notice
responding
problems
counties
requested
new
york
legislature
governor
created
solid
waste
management
authority
authority
public
benefit
corporation
see
pub
auth
law
ann
et
seq
west
authority
empowered
collect
process
dispose
solid
waste
generated
counties
authority
governmental
public
purposes
counties
may
impose
appropriate
reasonable
limitations
competition
instance
adopting
local
laws
requiring
solid
waste
delivered
specified
solid
waste
recovery
facility
authority
counties
entered
solid
waste
management
agreement
authority
agreed
manage
solid
waste
within
counties
private
haulers
remain
free
pick
citizens
trash
curb
authority
take
job
processing
trash
sorting
sending
disposal
fulfill
part
bargain
authority
agreed
purchase
develop
facilities
processing
disposal
solid
waste
recyclables
generated
counties
authority
collected
tipping
fees
cover
operating
maintenance
costs
tipping
fees
significantly
exceeded
charged
waste
removal
open
market
allowed
authority
average
private
waste
disposer
addition
landfill
transportation
solid
waste
disposal
fees
enabled
authority
provide
recycling
kinds
materials
well
composting
household
hazardous
waste
disposal
number
services
authority
operating
costs
debt
service
recouped
tipping
fees
charges
agreement
provided
counties
make
difference
described
agreement
flaw
citizens
might
opt
waste
hauled
facilities
lower
tipping
fees
avoid
stuck
bill
facilities
citizens
voted
chose
use
counties
enacted
flow
control
ordinances
requiring
solid
waste
generated
within
counties
delivered
authority
processing
private
haulers
must
obtain
permit
authority
collect
waste
counties
penalties
noncompliance
ordinances
include
permit
revocation
fines
imprisonment
petitioners
haulers
association
trade
association
made
solid
waste
management
companies
six
haulers
operated
oneida
herkimer
counties
action
filed
sued
counties
authority
rev
stat
alleging
flow
control
laws
violate
commerce
clause
discriminating
interstate
commerce
submitted
evidence
without
flow
control
laws
associated
tipping
fees
dispose
solid
waste
facilities
per
ton
including
transportation
district
read
decision
carbone
categorically
rejecting
nearly
flow
control
laws
ruled
haulers
favor
enjoining
enforcement
counties
laws
second
circuit
reversed
reasoning
carbone
dormant
commerce
clause
precedents
allow
distinction
laws
benefit
public
opposed
private
facilities
accordingly
held
statute
discriminate
interstate
commerce
favors
local
government
expense
private
industry
remanded
let
district
decide
whether
counties
ordinances
nevertheless
placed
incidental
burden
interstate
commerce
whether
ordinances
benefits
outweighed
burden
remand
protracted
discovery
magistrate
judge
district
found
haulers
show
ordinances
imposed
cognizable
burden
interstate
commerce
second
circuit
affirmed
assuming
laws
exacted
toll
interstate
commerce
finding
possible
burden
modest
compared
clear
substantial
benefits
ordinances
sixth
circuit
recently
issued
conflicting
decision
holding
flow
control
ordinance
favoring
public
entity
facially
discriminate
interstate
commerce
see
national
solid
wastes
management
assn
daviess
granted
certiorari
ii
commerce
clause
provides
congress
shall
power
regulate
commerce
foreign
nations
among
several
art
cl
although
constitution
terms
limit
power
regulate
commerce
long
interpreted
commerce
clause
implicit
restraint
state
authority
even
absence
conflicting
federal
statute
see
case
state
freight
tax
wall
cooley
board
wardens
port
philadelphia
ex
rel
soc
relief
distressed
pilots
determine
whether
law
violates
dormant
aspect
commerce
clause
first
ask
whether
discriminates
face
interstate
commerce
american
trucking
michigan
pub
serv
fort
gratiot
sanitary
landfill
michigan
dept
natural
resources
context
simply
means
differential
treatment
economic
interests
benefits
former
burdens
latter
oregon
waste
systems
department
environmental
quality
new
energy
ind
limbach
discriminatory
laws
motivated
simple
economic
protectionism
subject
virtually
per
se
rule
invalidity
philadelphia
new
jersey
overcome
showing
state
means
advance
legitimate
local
purpose
maine
taylor
following
lead
sixth
circuit
daviess
county
haulers
argue
vigorously
counties
ordinances
discriminate
interstate
commerce
carbone
carbone
town
clarkstown
new
york
hired
private
contractor
build
waste
transfer
station
according
terms
deal
contractor
operate
facility
five
years
charging
tipping
fee
per
ton
five
years
town
buy
facility
one
dollar
town
guaranteed
facility
receive
certain
volume
trash
per
year
make
good
promise
clarkstown
passed
flow
control
ordinance
requiring
nonhazardous
solid
waste
within
town
deposited
transfer
facility
see
struck
ordinance
holding
discriminated
interstate
commerce
hoard
ing
solid
waste
demand
get
rid
benefit
preferred
processing
facility
dissent
pointed
local
processing
cases
involved
laws
discriminated
favor
private
entities
public
ones
opinion
souter
according
dissent
clarkstown
ostensibly
private
transfer
station
essentially
municipal
facility
distinction
saved
clarkstown
ordinance
favoring
local
government
nature
different
favoring
particular
private
company
majority
comment
dissent
distinction
parties
case
draw
opposite
inferences
majority
silence
haulers
say
proves
majority
agreed
dissent
characterization
facility
thought
difference
dormant
commerce
clause
laws
favoring
private
entities
favoring
public
ones
counties
disagree
arguing
majority
studiously
avoided
issue
facility
carbone
private
therefore
question
whether
public
facilities
may
favored
properly
believe
latter
interpretation
carbone
correct
second
circuit
explained
carbone
justices
divided
fact
whether
favored
facility
public
private
rather
import
distinction
emphasis
original
carbone
dissent
offered
number
reasons
public
entities
treated
differently
private
ones
dormant
commerce
clause
see
opinion
souter
hard
suppose
carbone
majority
definitively
rejected
arguments
without
explaining
carbone
majority
viewed
clarkstown
flow
control
ordinance
one
instance
local
processing
requirements
long
held
invalid
cited
six
local
processing
cases
every
one
involved
discrimination
favor
private
description
cases
acknowledges
offending
local
laws
hoard
local
resource
meat
shrimp
milk
benefit
local
businesses
treat
emphasis
added
extending
line
local
processing
cases
cover
discrimination
favor
local
government
one
expect
said
cf
burr
cas
cc
marshall
opinion
establish
principle
never
recognized
expressed
plain
explicit
terms
carbone
majority
stated
conceivable
distinction
laws
local
processing
cases
clarkstown
flow
control
ordinance
clarkstown
ordinance
favored
single
local
business
rather
group
emphasis
added
thought
clarkstown
processing
facility
public
additional
distinction
merely
conceivable
conceived
discussed
length
three
justices
dissent
carbone
regarded
decided
flow
control
ordinances
case
benefit
clearly
public
facility
treating
private
companies
exactly
question
squarely
presented
facts
case
us
decide
flow
control
ordinances
discriminate
interstate
commerce
purposes
dormant
commerce
clause
compelling
reasons
justify
treating
laws
differently
laws
favoring
particular
private
businesses
competitors
conceptually
course
notion
discrimination
assumes
comparison
substantially
similar
entities
general
motors
tracy
omitted
municipalities
private
businesses
far
unlike
private
enterprise
government
vested
responsibility
protecting
health
safety
welfare
citizens
see
metropolitan
life
ins
massachusetts
traditionally
great
latitude
police
powers
legislate
protection
lives
limbs
health
comfort
quiet
persons
internal
quotation
marks
omitted
important
responsibilities
set
state
local
government
apart
typical
private
business
cf
tracy
supra
scalia
concurring
nothing
negative
commerce
clause
jurisprudence
compels
conclusion
private
marketers
engaged
sale
natural
gas
similarly
situated
public
utility
companies
given
differences
make
sense
regard
laws
favoring
local
government
laws
favoring
private
industry
equal
skepticism
local
processing
cases
demonstrate
law
favors
business
competition
rigorous
scrutiny
appropriate
law
often
product
simple
economic
protectionism
wyoming
oklahoma
philadelphia
new
jersey
laws
favoring
local
government
contrast
may
directed
toward
number
legitimate
goals
unrelated
protectionism
flow
control
ordinances
enable
counties
pursue
particular
policies
respect
handling
treatment
waste
generated
counties
allocating
costs
policies
citizens
businesses
according
volume
waste
generate
contrary
approach
treating
public
private
entities
dormant
commerce
clause
lead
unprecedented
unbounded
interference
courts
state
local
government
dormant
commerce
clause
roving
license
federal
courts
decide
activities
appropriate
state
local
government
undertake
activities
must
province
private
market
competition
case
citizens
oneida
herkimer
counties
chosen
government
provide
waste
management
services
limited
role
private
sector
arranging
transport
waste
curb
public
facilities
citizens
left
entire
matter
private
sector
case
regulation
undertook
discriminate
interstate
commerce
also
open
vest
responsibility
matter
government
adopt
flow
control
ordinances
support
government
effort
office
commerce
clause
control
decision
voters
whether
government
private
sector
provide
waste
management
services
commerce
clause
significantly
limits
ability
localities
regulate
otherwise
burden
flow
interstate
commerce
elevate
free
trade
values
maine
taylor
see
exxon
governor
maryland
commerce
clause
protect
particular
structure
method
operation
market
particularly
hesitant
interfere
counties
efforts
guise
commerce
clause
aste
disposal
typically
traditionally
local
government
function
case
calabresi
concurring
see
usa
recycling
town
babylon
ninety
years
settled
law
garbage
collection
disposal
core
function
local
government
melosi
garbage
cities
refuse
reform
environment
pp
congress
recognized
local
government
vital
role
waste
management
making
clear
collection
disposal
solid
wastes
continue
primarily
function
state
regional
local
agencies
resource
conservation
recovery
act
stat
policy
state
new
york
favors
displac
ing
competition
regulation
monopoly
control
area
pub
auth
law
ann
may
may
agree
approach
nothing
commerce
clause
vests
responsibility
policy
judgment
federal
finally
bears
mentioning
palpable
harm
imposed
ordinances
expensive
trash
removal
likely
fall
upon
people
voted
laws
dormant
commerce
clause
cases
often
find
discrimination
state
shifts
costs
regulation
burden
state
regulation
falls
interests
outside
state
unlikely
alleviated
operation
political
restraints
normally
exerted
interests
within
state
affected
southern
pacific
arizona
ex
rel
sullivan
citizens
businesses
counties
bear
costs
ordinances
reason
step
hand
local
businesses
victory
obtain
political
process
hold
counties
flow
control
ordinances
treat
private
business
interests
exactly
ones
discriminate
interstate
commerce
purposes
dormant
commerce
counties
flow
control
ordinances
properly
analyzed
test
set
forth
pike
bruce
church
reserved
laws
directed
legitimate
local
concerns
effects
upon
interstate
commerce
incidental
philadelphia
new
jersey
pike
test
uphold
nondiscriminatory
statute
like
one
unless
burden
imposed
interstate
commerce
clearly
excessive
relation
putative
local
benefits
northwest
central
pipeline
state
corporation
years
discovery
magistrate
judge
district
detect
disparate
impact
opposed
businesses
second
circuit
alluded
endorse
rather
abstract
harm
may
exist
counties
flow
control
ordinances
removed
waste
generated
oneida
herkimer
counties
national
marketplace
waste
processing
services
find
unnecessary
decide
whether
ordinances
impose
incidental
burden
interstate
commerce
arguable
burden
exceed
public
benefits
ordinances
ordinances
give
counties
convenient
effective
way
finance
integrated
package
services
revenue
generation
local
interest
justify
discrimination
interstate
commerce
carbone
emphasis
added
think
cognizable
benefit
purposes
pike
test
time
ordinances
financing
tools
increase
recycling
least
two
ways
conferring
significant
health
environmental
benefits
upon
citizens
counties
first
create
enhanced
incentives
recycling
proper
disposal
kinds
waste
solid
waste
disposal
expensive
counties
accept
recyclables
many
forms
hazardous
waste
free
effectively
encouraging
citizens
sort
trash
second
requiring
waste
deposited
authority
facilities
counties
markedly
increased
ability
enforce
recycling
laws
haulers
take
waste
disposal
site
achieving
equal
level
enforcement
much
costly
impossible
reasons
arguable
burden
ordinances
impose
interstate
commerce
exceed
public
benefits
counties
ordinances
exercises
police
power
effort
address
waste
disposal
typical
traditional
concern
local
government
haulers
nevertheless
ask
us
hold
laws
favoring
public
entities
treating
private
businesses
subject
almost
per
se
rule
invalidity
asserted
discrimination
alternative
maintain
counties
laws
survive
permissive
pike
test
asserted
burdens
commerce
common
thread
arguments
invitations
rigorously
scrutinize
economic
legislation
passed
auspices
police
power
time
presumed
make
binding
judgments
society
guise
interpreting
due
process
clause
see
lochner
new
york
seek
reclaim
ground
judicial
supremacy
banner
dormant
commerce
clause
judgments
appeals
second
circuit
affirmed
ordered
haulers
association
et
petitioners
solid
waste
management
authority
et
al
writ
certiorari
appeals
second
circuit
april
justice
scalia
concurring
part
join
part
parts
opinion
write
separately
reaffirm
view
commerce
clause
unjustified
judicial
invention
expanded
beyond
existing
domain
general
motors
tracy
scalia
concurring
historical
record
provides
grounds
reading
commerce
clause
says
authorization
congress
regulate
commerce
tyler
pipe
industries
washington
state
dept
revenue
scalia
concurring
part
dissenting
part
willing
enforce
stare
decisis
grounds
negative
commerce
clause
two
situations
state
law
facially
discriminates
interstate
commerce
state
law
indistinguishable
type
law
previously
held
unconstitutional
west
lynn
creamery
healy
scalia
concurring
judgment
today
opinion
makes
clear
law
issue
case
meets
neither
condition
benefits
public
entity
performing
traditional
function
treats
private
entities
precisely
way
disparate
treatment
constitutes
discrimination
objects
disparate
treatment
relevant
purposes
similarly
situated
camps
town
harrison
scalia
dissenting
none
cases
concludes
public
entities
private
entities
similarly
situated
commerce
clause
purposes
hold
broaden
negative
commerce
clause
beyond
existing
scope
intrude
regulatory
sphere
traditionally
occupied
tracy
supra
scalia
concurring
unable
join
part
principal
opinion
plurality
performs
pike
balancing
generally
speaking
balancing
various
values
left
congress
precisely
commerce
clause
real
commerce
clause
envisions
haulers
association
et
petitioners
solid
waste
management
authority
et
al
writ
certiorari
appeals
second
circuit
april
justice
thomas
concurring
judgment
concur
judgment
although
joined
carbone
clarkstown
longer
believe
correctly
decided
negative
commerce
clause
basis
constitution
proved
unworkable
practice
see
camps
town
harrison
thomas
dissenting
tyler
pipe
industries
washington
state
dept
revenue
scalia
concurring
part
dissenting
part
license
cases
taney
debate
majority
dissent
shows
application
negative
commerce
clause
turns
solely
policy
considerations
constitution
policy
role
regulating
interstate
commerce
discard
negative
commerce
clause
jurisprudence
commerce
clause
congress
shall
power
regulate
commerce
foreign
nations
among
several
indian
tribes
art
cl
language
clause
allows
congress
regulate
interstate
commerce
also
prevent
state
regulation
interstate
commerce
state
bd
ins
todd
shipyards
gibbons
ogden
wheat
expanding
powers
explicitly
conferred
congress
interpreted
commerce
clause
tool
courts
strike
state
laws
believes
inhibit
interstate
commerce
basis
constitution
interpretation
contest
point
simply
begins
analysis
appealing
stare
decisis
although
constitution
terms
limit
power
regulate
commerce
long
interpreted
commerce
clause
implicit
restraint
state
authority
even
absence
conflicting
federal
statute
see
case
state
freight
tax
wall
cooley
board
wardens
port
philadelphia
ex
rel
soc
relief
distressed
pilots
ante
reliance
cooley
state
freight
tax
curious
abandoned
reasoning
cases
recent
jurisprudence
cooley
state
freight
tax
premised
upon
notion
commerce
clause
exclusive
grant
power
congress
certain
subject
cooley
supra
holding
hatever
subjects
commerce
clause
power
nature
national
admit
one
uniform
system
plan
regulation
may
justly
said
nature
require
exclusive
legislation
ongress
holding
nature
th
subject
state
pilotage
laws
require
exclusive
legislation
therefore
upholding
state
laws
negative
commerce
clause
challenge
state
freight
tax
supra
applying
rationale
however
longer
limits
congress
power
analyzing
whether
subjects
state
regulation
admit
one
uniform
system
cooley
supra
rather
modern
jurisprudence
focuses
upon
way
regulate
subjects
decide
whether
regulation
permissible
ante
reasoning
cooley
state
freight
tax
rejected
entirely
provide
foundation
today
decision
unfazed
proceeds
analyze
whether
ordinances
discriminat
face
interstate
commerce
ante
none
cases
cites
explains
absence
presence
discrimination
relevant
deciding
whether
ordinances
constitutionally
permissible
least
one
case
affirmatively
admits
nondiscrimination
rule
basis
constitution
philadelphia
new
jersey
bounds
restraints
appear
nowhere
words
commerce
clause
emerged
gradually
decisions
giving
effect
basic
purpose
thus
cloaked
purpose
commerce
clause
rule
discrimination
applies
decide
case
exists
untethered
written
constitution
rule
instead
depends
upon
policy
preferences
majority
policy
preferences
unsuitable
basis
constitutional
doctrine
shift
time
demonstrated
different
theories
offered
support
nondiscrimination
principle
early
years
nondiscrimination
rule
struck
state
health
law
enactment
similar
statute
one
composing
union
result
destruction
commerce
among
several
minnesota
barber
see
packing
haydel
stating
commerce
clause
violation
occur
state
statute
directly
obstruct
burden
interstate
commerce
recently
struck
state
laws
sometimes
based
preference
national
unity
see
american
trucking
michigan
pub
serv
justifying
nondiscrimination
rule
stating
ur
constitution
framed
upon
theory
peoples
several
must
sink
swim
together
internal
quotation
marks
omitted
times
basis
antiprotectionist
sentiment
see
oregon
waste
systems
department
environmental
quality
noting
interest
avoid
ing
tendencies
toward
economic
balkanization
new
energy
ind
limbach
stating
negative
commerce
clause
prohibits
economic
protectionism
regulatory
measures
designed
benefit
economic
interests
burdening
competitors
see
also
carbone
central
rationale
rule
discrimination
prohibit
state
municipal
laws
whose
object
local
economic
protectionism
laws
excite
jealousies
retaliatory
measures
constitution
designed
prevent
toomer
witsell
striking
law
impose
artificial
rigidity
economic
pattern
industry
many
cases
today
majority
dissent
rest
erroneous
assumption
must
choose
economic
protectionism
free
market
constitution
vests
fundamentally
legislative
choice
congress
extent
congress
exercise
authority
make
choice
constitution
limit
power
regulate
commerce
face
congressional
silence
free
set
balance
protectionism
free
market
instead
accepting
constitutional
reality
negative
commerce
clause
jurisprudence
gives
nine
justices
power
decide
appropriate
balance
ii
foregoing
demonstrates
despite
years
negative
commerce
clause
doctrine
principled
way
decide
case
current
law
notably
consider
case
light
language
constitution
historical
context
alden
maine
likewise
follow
cardinal
rule
construe
provisions
context
balsys
text
construe
take
account
founders
deliberate
choice
words
natural
meaning
wright
furthermore
debate
opinion
dissenting
opinion
reveals
case
law
applies
facts
explaining
ordinances
discriminate
interstate
commerce
government
vested
responsibility
protecting
health
safety
welfare
citizens
ante
according
law
favoring
business
requires
rigorous
scrutiny
law
often
product
economic
protectionism
ante
law
favoring
local
government
however
may
directed
toward
number
legitimate
goals
unrelated
protectionism
ibid
distinction
razor
thin
contrast
today
deferential
approach
apparently
based
trust
local
government
applied
equivalent
strict
scrutiny
cases
even
unchallenged
state
law
discriminated
favor
private
entities
legitimate
nonprotectionist
reason
see
barber
supra
striking
state
inspection
law
livestock
even
though
challenge
presumption
statute
enacted
good
faith
protect
health
people
minnesota
carbone
involved
discrimination
favor
private
entities
doubt
good
faith
municipality
attempting
deal
waste
ordinance
struck
ordinance
allow
interstate
entities
participate
waste
disposal
majority
distinguishes
carbone
deciding
favoritism
government
monopoly
less
suspect
government
regulation
private
see
basis
drawing
conclusion
anything
suggests
preference
government
monopoly
privatization
ante
stating
waste
disposal
typically
traditionally
local
government
function
alteration
internal
quotation
marks
omitted
whatever
reason
choice
make
like
previous
negative
commerce
clause
cases
today
decision
leaves
future
state
local
regulation
commerce
whim
federal
judiciary
iii
despite
acceptance
negative
commerce
clause
jurisprudence
expresses
concern
unprecedented
unbounded
interference
courts
state
local
government
ante
explains
dormant
commerce
clause
roving
license
federal
courts
decide
activities
appropriate
state
local
government
undertake
activities
must
province
private
market
competition
reason
step
hand
local
businesses
victory
obtain
political
process
ante
agree
commerce
clause
roving
license
deliver
businesses
victories
failed
obtain
political
process
differ
believe
powerful
rhetoric
completely
undermined
doctrine
applies
regard
analogy
lochner
new
york
suggests
reject
negative
commerce
clause
rather
tweak
ante
lochner
located
right
free
contract
constitutional
provision
says
nothing
sort
negative
commerce
clause
jurisprudence
created
whole
cloth
illegitimate
right
vindicated
lochner
yet
today
decision
repudiate
doctrinal
error
rather
propagates
error
narrowing
negative
commerce
clause
policy
reasons
reasons
later
majorities
may
find
entirely
illegitimate
majority
revisits
familiar
territory
three
years
lochner
narrowed
right
contract
policy
reasons
overrule
lochner
muller
oregon
upholding
requirement
women
difference
two
sexes
justifies
difference
legislation
like
muller
today
majority
trifles
unsound
illegitimate
jurisprudence
yet
fails
abandon
believe
power
regulate
interstate
commerce
power
given
congress
concur
judgment
haulers
association
et
petitioners
solid
waste
management
authority
et
al
writ
certiorari
appeals
second
circuit
april
justice
alito
justice
stevens
justice
kennedy
join
dissenting
carbone
clarkstown
held
flow
control
ordinance
require
solid
waste
processed
designated
transfer
station
leaving
municipality
discriminated
interstate
commerce
invalid
commerce
clause
depriv
ed
competitors
including
firms
access
local
market
provisions
challenged
case
essentially
identical
ordinance
invalidated
carbone
respectfully
dissent
interpreted
commerce
clause
invalidate
local
laws
impose
commercial
barriers
discriminate
article
commerce
reason
origin
destination
state
acknowledges
law
discriminat
es
context
mandates
treatment
economic
way
benefits
former
burdens
latter
ante
quoting
oregon
waste
systems
department
environmental
quality
local
law
discriminates
interstate
commerce
sustainable
serves
legitimate
local
purpose
served
well
nondiscriminatory
means
maine
taylor
solid
waste
even
value
article
commerce
fort
gratiot
sanitary
landfill
michigan
dept
natural
resources
accordingly
laws
discriminate
trash
reason
origin
destination
state
carbone
sustainable
serve
legitimate
local
purpose
served
well
nondiscriminatory
means
carbone
invalidated
local
ordinance
requiring
nonhazardous
solid
waste
clarkstown
new
york
deposited
specific
local
transfer
facility
concluded
ordinance
discriminated
interstate
commerce
hoard
ed
solid
waste
demand
get
rid
benefit
preferred
processing
facility
explained
ordinance
serve
purpose
nonprotectionist
regulation
ensures
facility
profitable
local
contractor
build
clarkstown
buy
back
nominal
cost
five
years
words
flow
control
ordinance
financing
measure
ibid
concluded
however
revenue
generation
local
interest
justify
discrimination
interstate
commerce
ibid
also
held
clarkstown
number
nondiscriminatory
alternatives
addressing
health
environmental
problems
alleged
justify
ordinance
including
uniform
safety
regulations
enacted
ensure
competitors
underprice
market
cutting
corners
environmental
safety
ibid
thus
invalidated
ordinance
legitimate
local
interests
served
ordinance
accomplished
nondiscriminatory
means
see
case
meaningfully
distinguished
carbone
acknowledges
salient
difference
cases
ordinance
invalidated
carbone
discriminated
favor
privately
owned
facility
whereas
laws
issue
discriminate
favor
facilities
owned
operated
public
benefit
corporation
ante
relies
distinction
public
private
ownership
uphold
laws
even
though
straightforward
application
carbone
lead
opposite
result
see
ante
distinction
drawn
illusory
without
precedent
ii
fact
flow
control
laws
issue
discriminate
favor
enterprise
meaningfully
distinguish
case
carbone
preferred
facility
carbone
sure
nominally
owned
private
contractor
built
facility
town
behalf
misleading
describe
facility
private
exchange
contractor
promise
build
facility
town
free
charge
sell
town
five
years
later
town
guaranteed
first
five
years
facility
existence
contractor
receive
minimum
waste
flow
tons
per
year
contractor
charge
tipping
fee
facility
received
less
tons
year
town
make
tipping
fee
deficit
ibid
prevent
residents
businesses
trash
haulers
taking
waste
elsewhere
pursuit
lower
tipping
fees
leaving
town
responsible
covering
shortfall
contractor
guaranteed
revenue
stream
town
enacted
ordinance
requir
ing
nonhazardous
solid
waste
within
town
deposited
preferred
facility
ibid
observed
object
arrangement
amortize
cost
transfer
station
town
finance
new
facility
income
generated
tipping
fees
ibid
emphasis
added
words
explained
flow
control
ordinance
wa
financing
measure
everyone
including
regarded
town
new
transfer
station
real
difference
facility
issue
carbone
counterpart
case
title
former
yet
formally
passed
municipality
exalts
form
substance
adopting
test
turns
technical
distinction
particularly
since
barring
obstacle
presented
state
law
transaction
carbone
restructured
provide
passage
title
beginning
rather
end
period
reason
surprising
carbone
dispute
dissent
observation
preferred
facility
practical
purposes
owned
municipality
see
opinion
souter
clarkstown
transfer
station
essentially
municipal
facility
describing
nominal
proprietor
transfer
station
essentially
agent
municipal
government
contrary
repeatedly
referred
transfer
station
terms
suggesting
transfer
station
fact
belong
town
see
explaining
town
finance
new
facility
income
generated
tipping
fees
emphasis
added
observing
challenged
ordinance
designed
ensur
facility
profitable
concluding
elected
use
open
market
earn
revenues
project
town
may
employ
discriminatory
regulation
give
project
advantage
rival
businesses
state
emphasis
added
today
dismisses
statements
best
inconclusive
ante
however
fails
offer
explanation
meaning
possibly
attach
carbone
repeated
references
clarkstown
transfer
station
municipal
facility
also
ignores
fact
ordinance
included
entirety
appendix
opinion
repeatedly
referred
station
town
clarkstown
solid
waste
facility
likewise
fails
acknowledge
parties
carbone
openly
acknowledged
municipal
character
transfer
station
see
pet
town
designated
trash
disposal
facility
operated
private
contractor
agreement
town
emphasis
added
brief
petitioner
arguing
clear
purported
safety
health
benefits
flow
control
ordinance
derive
simply
continued
economic
viability
town
waste
facility
emphasis
added
internal
quotation
marks
omitted
brief
respondent
town
entered
contract
clarkstown
recycling
provided
firm
build
operate
new
town
facility
emphasis
added
see
ambiguities
statements
much
less
reason
dismiss
best
inconclusive
reflect
clear
understanding
station
purposes
relevant
dormant
commerce
clause
municipal
facility
iii
event
never
treated
discriminatory
legislation
greater
deference
simply
entity
favored
legislation
enterprise
suggesting
otherwise
relies
unduly
carbone
passing
observation
local
laws
hoard
local
resource
meat
shrimp
milk
benefit
local
businesses
ante
emphasis
original
carbone
use
word
businesses
insists
somehow
reveals
carbone
extending
dormant
commerce
clause
jurisprudence
cover
discrimination
favor
local
government
ibid
exten
sion
required
long
subjected
discriminatory
legislation
strict
scrutiny
never
today
recognized
exception
discrimination
favor
entity
long
ago
recognized
commerce
clause
violated
law
discriminates
favor
monopoly
south
carolina
enacted
laws
giving
state
agency
exclusive
right
operate
facilities
selling
alcoholic
beverages
within
state
laws
challenged
commerce
clause
scott
donald
vance
vandercook
held
commerce
clause
barred
state
prohibiting
residents
purchasing
alcohol
vendors
see
state
surmount
problem
allowing
residents
receive
shipments
personal
use
see
holding
based
fundamental
dormant
commerce
clause
principle
applied
put
vance
state
discriminate
bringing
lawful
articles
importing
discrimination
hindrance
interstate
commerce
unjust
preference
products
enacting
state
similar
products
quoting
scott
supra
carbone
supra
commerce
clause
bars
state
local
laws
impose
commercial
barriers
discriminate
article
commerce
reason
origin
destination
state
thus
amendment
laws
creating
liquor
monopolies
many
maintain
today
deemed
discriminatory
dormant
commerce
clause
see
granholm
heald
explaining
amendment
makes
possible
assume
direct
control
liquor
distribution
outlets
see
thomas
dissenting
noting
although
laws
creating
state
monopoly
sale
liquor
discriminat
interstate
commerce
within
ambit
amendment
therefore
immune
scrutiny
dormant
commerce
clause
course
comparable
provision
constitution
authorizing
discriminate
providers
waste
processing
disposal
services
either
means
monopoly
otherwise
ever
suggested
discriminatory
legislation
favoring
enterprise
entitled
favorable
treatment
sure
entities
accorded
special
status
doctrine
doctrine
applicable
doctrine
state
permitted
exercise
discretion
parties
deal
reeves
stake
doctrine
thus
allows
engage
certain
practices
selling
exclusively
buying
exclusively
state
residents
long
state
acting
market
participant
rather
market
regulator
timber
development
wunnicke
emphasis
added
respondents
exactly
doctrine
says
acting
market
participants
operating
business
enterprise
area
established
interstate
market
respondents
also
regulating
market
discriminatory
manner
claiming
special
governmental
status
somehow
insulates
dormant
commerce
clause
challenge
see
ibid
respondents
insist
doctrine
application
asserting
defense
doctrine
brief
respondents
argument
misses
point
regardless
whether
respondents
assert
defense
doctrine
cases
make
clear
discriminate
interstate
commerce
unless
acting
solely
market
participants
today
however
suggests
contrary
prior
holdings
discriminate
favor
interests
acting
market
participant
market
regulator
iv
despite
precedent
condemning
discrimination
favor
enterprises
attempts
develop
logical
justification
rule
creates
today
justification
rests
three
principal
assertions
first
insists
simply
make
sense
regard
laws
favoring
local
government
laws
favoring
private
industry
equal
skepticism
latter
often
product
economic
protectionism
ante
quoting
wyoming
oklahoma
former
may
directed
toward
number
legitimate
goals
unrelated
protectionism
ante
second
reasons
deference
legislation
discriminating
favor
municipal
landfill
especially
appropriate
considering
aste
disposal
typically
traditionally
local
government
function
ante
quoting
calabresi
concurring
third
suggests
respondents
laws
discriminatory
treat
private
business
interests
exactly
ones
ante
find
arguments
unpersuasive
see
basis
assumption
discrimination
favor
facility
owned
government
likely
serve
legitimate
goals
unrelated
protectionism
discrimination
favor
government
facility
serves
economic
interests
carbone
concurring
judgment
quoting
raymond
motor
rice
inuring
benefit
local
residents
employed
facility
local
businesses
supply
facility
goods
services
local
workers
employed
businesses
therefore
surprising
read
opinion
state
discrimination
favor
business
likely
motivated
economic
protectionism
experience
countries
state
ownership
common
country
teaches
governments
often
discriminate
favor
businesses
shielding
international
competition
precisely
purpose
protecting
derive
economic
benefits
businesses
including
discrimination
amounts
economic
protectionism
realistic
sense
token
discrimination
favor
privately
owned
facility
may
serve
legitimate
ends
promotion
public
health
safety
example
state
might
enact
legislation
discriminating
favor
produce
livestock
grown
within
state
reasoning
state
inspectors
easily
monitor
use
pesticides
fertilizers
feed
farms
within
state
borders
legislation
almost
certainly
unconstitutional
notwithstanding
potential
promote
public
health
safety
see
philadelphia
new
jersey
noting
repeatedly
invalidated
legislation
presumably
legitimate
goal
sought
achieved
illegitimate
means
isolating
state
national
economy
fallacy
approach
illustrated
comparing
law
discriminates
favor
facility
owned
corporation
whose
shares
publicly
held
law
discriminating
favor
otherwise
identical
facility
owned
state
municipality
favored
disfavored
two
laws
essentially
one
major
exception
law
favoring
corporate
facility
presumably
benefits
corporation
shareholders
probably
local
residents
whereas
law
favoring
facility
presumably
benefits
people
enacting
state
municipality
understand
former
law
latter
regarded
tool
economic
protectionism
think
realistic
consistent
precedents
condemn
discriminatory
laws
protectionist
upholding
equally
discriminatory
laws
lawful
measures
designed
serve
legitimate
local
interests
unrelated
protectionism
reasons
accept
proposition
laws
discriminating
favor
enterprises
unlikely
product
economic
protectionism
exempt
usual
dormant
commerce
clause
standards
proper
analysis
dormant
commerce
clause
involves
inquiry
whether
challenged
act
sense
directed
toward
legitimate
goals
unrelated
protectionism
equally
important
means
goals
realized
chosen
means
take
form
statute
discriminates
interstate
commerce
face
practical
burden
falls
enacting
government
demonstrate
statute
legitimate
local
purpose
purpose
served
well
available
nondiscriminatory
means
taylor
quoting
hughes
oklahoma
thus
legislative
means
discriminatory
regardless
legitimate
nonprotectionist
underlying
legislative
goals
may
legislation
subject
strict
scrutiny
similarly
fact
discriminatory
law
may
sense
directed
toward
number
legitimate
goals
unrelated
protectionism
make
law
nondiscriminatory
existence
goals
relevant
whether
law
discriminatory
whether
law
allowed
stand
even
though
discriminates
interstate
commerce
even
existence
legitimate
goals
enough
discriminatory
legislation
upheld
goals
adequately
achieved
nondiscriminatory
means
see
philadelphia
supra
evil
protectionism
reside
legislative
means
well
legislative
ends
whatever
state
purpose
may
accomplished
discriminating
articles
commerce
coming
outside
state
unless
reason
apart
origin
treat
differently
hunt
washington
state
apple
advertising
explaining
need
ascribe
economic
protection
motive
discriminatory
laws
laws
subject
strict
scrutiny
even
enacted
declared
purpose
protecting
consumers
deception
fraud
marketplace
dean
milk
madison
instructive
point
case
involved
dormant
commerce
clause
challenge
ordinance
requiring
milk
sold
madison
wisconsin
processed
within
five
miles
city
central
square
see
ordinance
professe
health
measure
may
conferred
benefit
city
residents
extent
succeeded
guaranteeing
purity
quality
milk
sold
city
nevertheless
invalidated
ordinance
concluding
public
health
benefits
may
conferred
achieved
reasonable
nondiscriminatory
alternatives
including
system
allow
nonlocal
dairy
qualify
sell
milk
city
upon
proving
compliance
applicable
health
safety
requirements
inquire
whether
real
purpose
ordinance
benefit
public
health
safety
protect
local
economic
interests
make
effort
determine
whether
extent
ordinance
may
succeeded
promoting
health
safety
fact
apparently
assumed
ordinance
fairly
characterized
health
measure
nevertheless
concluded
ordinance
stand
erect
ed
economic
barrier
protecting
major
local
industry
competition
without
state
plac
ed
discriminatory
burden
interstate
commerce
essential
protection
local
health
interests
overarching
concern
expressed
ordinance
left
intact
invite
multiplication
preferential
trade
areas
destructive
purpose
commerce
clause
circumstances
presented
concluded
regulation
must
yield
principle
state
dealings
another
may
place
position
economic
isolation
ibid
quoting
baldwin
seelig
reasoning
dooms
laws
challenged
like
ordinance
dean
milk
laws
discriminate
interstate
commerce
generally
favoring
local
interests
nonlocal
interests
defended
ground
serve
legitimate
goals
unrelated
protectionism
health
safety
protection
environment
question
laws
issue
case
serve
legitimate
goals
laws
offend
dormant
commerce
clause
goals
attained
effectively
nondiscriminatory
means
indeed
less
carbone
goals
achieved
uniform
health
safety
regulations
enacted
without
object
discriminate
ensure
competitors
municipal
program
underprice
market
cutting
corners
environmental
safety
respondents
also
free
course
subsidize
ir
program
general
taxes
municipal
bonds
elected
use
open
market
earn
revenues
waste
management
program
respondents
may
employ
discriminatory
regulation
give
program
advantage
rival
businesses
state
ibid
next
suggests
deference
legislation
discriminating
favor
municipal
landfill
especially
appropriate
considering
aste
disposal
typically
traditionally
local
government
function
ante
quoting
calabresi
concurring
disagree
two
grounds
first
previously
recognized
standard
turns
judicial
appraisal
whether
particular
governmental
function
principle
unworkable
practice
garcia
san
antonio
metropolitan
transit
authority
indeed
twice
experimented
standards
first
context
intergovernmental
tax
immunity
see
south
carolina
recently
context
state
regulatory
immunity
commerce
clause
see
national
league
cities
usery
abandon
later
analytically
unsound
see
garcia
supra
overruling
national
league
cities
new
york
overruling
south
carolina
thus
extent
today
holding
rests
distinction
traditional
governmental
functions
nontraditional
counterparts
see
ante
reconciled
prior
precedent
second
although
many
municipalities
country
long
assumed
responsibility
disposing
local
garbage
see
carbone
supra
souter
dissenting
garbage
produced
country
still
managed
private
sector
see
brief
national
solid
wastes
management
association
et
al
amici
curiae
today
nearly
solid
waste
received
landfills
received
private
sector
landfills
beck
et
size
solid
waste
industry
apr
study
sponsored
environmental
research
education
foundation
noting
solid
waste
produced
managed
privately
owned
businesses
respect
simply
mistaken
concluding
waste
disposal
typically
local
government
function
moreover
especially
considering
recognition
notion
discrimination
assumes
comparison
substantially
similar
entities
ante
quoting
general
motors
tracy
traditional
municipal
landfill
present
purposes
entirely
different
monopolistic
landfill
supported
kind
discriminatory
legislation
issue
case
carbone
former
may
rooted
history
tradition
latter
deemed
unconstitutional
today
see
carbone
supra
therefore
far
clear
laws
issue
fairly
described
serving
function
typically
traditionally
performed
local
governments
equally
unpersuasive
suggestion
laws
discriminate
interstate
commerce
treat
private
business
interests
exactly
ones
ante
critical
issue
whether
challenged
legislation
discriminates
interstate
commerce
regardless
whether
harmed
reside
entirely
outside
state
question
law
subject
strict
scrutiny
indeed
long
recognized
burden
imposed
state
upon
interstate
commerce
sustained
simply
statute
imposing
applies
alike
people
including
people
state
enacting
statute
brimmer
rebman
quoting
minnesota
barber
accord
fort
gratiot
sanitary
landfill
dean
milk
therefore
makes
difference
laws
issue
apply
businesses
see
carbone
supra
ordinance
less
discriminatory
processors
also
covered
prohibition
dormant
commerce
clause
long
understood
prohibit
kind
discriminatory
legislation
upheld
case
therefore
reverse
decision
appeals
footnotes
tipping
fees
disposal
charges
levied
collectors
drop
waste
processing
facility
called
tipping
fees
garbage
trucks
literally
tip
back
end
dump
carried
waste
haulers
counties
pay
tipping
fees
least
per
ton
price
ballooned
much
per
ton
particular
load
contained
recyclables
oneida
flow
control
ordinance
provides
part
time
placement
solid
waste
recyclables
roadside
designated
area
approved
county
authority
pursuant
contract
county
person
collection
accordance
herewith
solid
waste
recyclables
shall
delivered
appropriate
facility
entity
person
responsible
disposition
designated
county
authority
pursuant
contract
authority
app
pet
cert
relevant
portion
herkimer
flow
control
ordinance
substantially
similar
placement
garbage
recyclable
materials
roadside
designated
area
approved
legislature
person
collection
accordance
herewith
garbage
recyclable
material
shall
delivered
appropriate
facility
designated
legislature
authority
pursuant
contract
county
side
makes
much
carbone
majority
various
descriptions
facility
haulers
point
twice
referred
construction
financing
transfer
station
town
project
see
new
facility
project
brief
petitioners
counties
note
majority
referred
transfer
station
facility
carbone
favored
local
operator
preferred
processing
facility
single
local
proprietor
local
business
never
public
facility
brief
respondents
dissent
mined
carbone
decision
appendix
briefs
instances
allegedly
supportive
terminology
post
opinion
alito
continue
find
duel
labels
best
inconclusive
see
timber
development
wunnicke
invalidating
alaska
regulation
requiring
alaskan
timber
processed
prior
export
pike
bruce
church
invalidating
application
arizona
statute
require
cantaloupes
packaged
within
state
export
toomer
witsell
invalidating
south
carolina
statute
requiring
shrimp
fisherman
unload
pack
stamp
catch
shipping
another
state
packing
haydel
invalidating
louisiana
statute
prohibiting
export
shrimp
unless
heads
hulls
first
removed
within
state
johnson
haydel
invalidating
analogous
louisiana
statute
oysters
minnesota
barber
invalidating
minnesota
law
requiring
meat
sold
within
state
examined
inspector
dean
milk
madison
invalidating
local
ordinance
requiring
milk
sold
city
pasteurized
within
five
miles
city
center
discussed
elsewhere
carbone
dissent
post
readily
distinguishable
ground
dissent
asserts
long
ago
recognized
commerce
clause
violated
law
discriminates
favor
monopoly
post
authority
cites
scott
donald
vance
vandercook
certainly
qualifies
long
ago
support
proposition
scott
struck
two
laws
discriminated
favor
businesses
businesses
neither
law
favored
local
government
expense
private
industry
see
granholm
heald
describing
scott
holding
scott
simply
another
case
like
cited
vance
actually
upheld
south
carolina
monopoly
liquor
distribution
reject
ing
argument
monopoly
system
unconstitutionally
discriminatory
granholm
supra
thomas
dissenting
citing
vance
supra
dissent
vance
argued
state
monopoly
system
constituted
unconstitutional
discrimination
granholm
supra
thomas
dissenting
citing
opinion
shiras
vance
simply
struck
regulation
direct
shipments
consumers
personal
use
excruciatingly
arcane
precedents
see
tellingly
vance
harkens
back
bygone
era
dissent
today
cited
two
cases
past
years
justice
thomas
thus
wrong
stating
approach
might
suggest
preference
government
monopoly
privatization
post
opinion
concurring
judgment
instead
preference
affected
locality
opinion
simply
recognizes
law
favoring
public
entity
treating
private
entities
discriminate
interstate
commerce
law
favoring
local
business
others
counties
amicus
asked
oral
argument
affirmance
lead
hamburger
stand
accompanied
flow
control
law
requiring
citizens
purchase
burgers
producer
tr
oral
arg
counties
amicus
state
new
york
doubt
existence
major
interests
adversely
affected
law
powerful
safeguard
legislative
abuse
minnesota
clover
leaf
creamery
recognizing
local
government
may
facilitate
customary
traditional
government
function
waste
disposal
without
running
afoul
commerce
clause
hardly
prescription
state
control
economy
event
congress
retains
authority
commerce
clause
written
regulate
interstate
commerce
whether
engaged
private
public
entities
use
power
past
limit
state
use
exclusive
franchises
see
gibbons
ogden
wheat
footnotes
justification
negative
commerce
clause
unsupported
constitution
see
tyler
pipe
industries
washington
state
dept
revenue
scalia
concurring
part
dissenting
part
previous
case
addresses
question
whether
negative
commerce
clause
applies
favoritism
government
entity
agree
carbone
clarkstown
resolve
issue
ante
dissent
argues
preference
unwarranted
post
opinion
alito
accept
proposition
laws
discriminating
favor
enterprises
unlikely
product
economic
protectionism
exempt
usual
dormant
commerce
clause
standards
footnotes
see
granholm
heald
thomas
dissenting
liquor
regulation
schemes
discriminated
economic
interests
state
monopolies
permit
direct
shipments
consumers
example
thought
discriminate
wholesalers
retailers
citing
vance
see
owen
sun
zheng
antitrust
china
problem
incentive
compatibility
competition
econ
qin
wto
regulation
subsidies
enterprises
soes
critical
appraisal
china
accession
protocol
econ
therefore
seems
strange
commerce
clause
historically
understood
protect
free
trade
prohibit
plac
ing
position
economic
isolation
baldwin
seelig
construed
condone
blatantly
protectionist
laws
grounds
legislation
necessary
support
governmental
efforts
commandeer
local
market
particular
good
service
adopting
construction
sends
bold
enticing
message
local
governments
throughout
protectionist
legislation
permissible
long
enacting
government
excludes
participants
affected
local
market
law
granting
monopoly
rights
single
local
business
clearly
immune
dormant
commerce
clause
challenge
simply
excluded
competitors
local
market
see
carbone
clarkstown
therefore
strange
attach
significance
fact
laws
issue
apply
competitors
alike