September 8, 2005
1. Was this a case in which the Alabama statute was unconstitutional because the statute discriminated against out-of-state interests or did the statute impose an undue burden on interstate commerce?
In this case the Alabama statute was unconstitutional because the statute discriminated against out of state interests. The standard charge for all generators of hazardous waste is $26.50. This charge is for everyone within and out of the state. If everyone pays the same fee there is no discrimination.
The $72.00 extra fee imposed on out of state hazardous material was discriminatory. Alabama reason for their extra charge is origin. Charging extra to out of state hazardous materials is unconstitutional because everyone is not treated the same, which is discrimination. The article points out that states are allowed to discriminate on out of state commerce if there is a reason other than origin--everything must be uniform across the states.
The statute did not impose an undue burden the problem was equality in business across state lines.
2. Do you think that this case would have been differently decided if there was some showing that out of state waste was more hazardous than in state hazardous waste?
The case would have been decided on differently if there was some showing that out of state waste was more hazardous than instate hazardous waste. Alabama would have a reason to discriminate due to extra dangers and the extra precautions needed to handle out of state waste. If Alabama were able to prove the dangers of out of state waste then they would have a right to charge a fee or even reject out of state waste. Without a basis for imposing non uniform charges Alabama will be breaking the law.
3. By this ruling,