Alabama v. North Carolina

Last updated

Alabama v. North Carolina
Seal of the United States Supreme Court.svg
Argued January 11, 2010
Decided June 1, 2010
Full case nameState of Alabama, State of Florida, State of Tennessee, Commonwealth of Virginia, and Southeast Interstate Low-Level Radioactive Waste Management Commission, Plaintiffs v. State of North Carolina
Citations560 U.S. 330 ( more )
130 S. Ct. 2295; 176 L. Ed. 2d 1070
Argument Oral argument
Decision Opinion
Holding
North Carolina was not prohibited from withdrawing from the Southeast Interstate Low-Level Radioactive Waste Management Compact, and the Southeast Compact Commission had no authority to levy monetary sanctions against North Carolina
Court membership
Chief Justice
John Roberts
Associate Justices
John P. Stevens  · Antonin Scalia
Anthony Kennedy  · Clarence Thomas
Ruth Bader Ginsburg  · Stephen Breyer
Samuel Alito  · Sonia Sotomayor
Case opinions
MajorityScalia, joined by Stevens, Ginsburg, Alito; Roberts (all but Parts II–D and III–B); Kennedy, Sotomayor (all but Part II–E); Thomas (all but Part III–B); Breyer (all but Parts II–C, II–D, and II–E)
ConcurrenceKennedy (in part), joined by Sotomayor
Concur/dissentRoberts, joined by Thomas
Concur/dissentBreyer, joined by Roberts
Laws applied
U. S. Const., Art. III, §2, cl. 2
28 U. S. C. §1251(a)
Southeast Interstate Low-Level Radioactive Waste Management Compact

Alabama v. North Carolina, 560 U.S. 330 (2010), was an original jurisdiction United States Supreme Court case. [1] It arose from a disagreement between the state of North Carolina and the other members of the Southeast Interstate Low-Level Radioactive Waste Management Compact over the funding for a joint project. Eight states had formed the compact in 1983 to manage low-level radioactive waste in the southeastern United States. In 1986, North Carolina was chosen as the location for the regional waste facility, and it asked the other states for funding to help with the project. The project stalled and was eventually shut down, despite North Carolina receiving $80 million from the other states. After the project's demise, the other states demanded their money back, but North Carolina refused to repay them, leading to this case.

Contents

Background

In 1980, Congress passed the Low Level Radioactive Waste Policy Act to authorize the creation of interstate agreements regarding the management of low-level radioactive waste. [2] [3] [4] Accordingly, in 1983, North Carolina, along with the states of Alabama, Florida, Georgia, Mississippi, South Carolina, Tennessee, and Virginia, formed the Southeast Interstate Low-Level Radioactive Waste Management Compact to coordinate their management of low-level radioactive waste. [5] [6] It was run by a commission, which was tasked with choosing a State in which to construct a "regional disposal facility". In 1986, the commission chose North Carolina, thus requiring it to begin the process of seeking a licence for the construction of such a facility. [7] Two years later, North Carolina asked the other states for monetary assistance with the project, which it received – by 1997, North Carolina had been paid more than $80 million. [7] Yet, despite $34 million of North Carolina's own funds, it was unable to obtain the license in a timely fashion. In 1997, the commission told North Carolina that, without a plan for funding the rest of the licensing steps, it would be cut off; when it was, North Carolina began to shut down the project, claiming that it could not continue without additional funding. [1]

In response, in June 1999, Florida and Tennessee asked that the commission levy monetary sanctions against North Carolina. North Carolina responded by attempting to leave the Compact entirely. [8] It based this decision on a clause which declared that "any party state may withdraw from the compact by enacting a law repealing the compact, provided that if a regional facility is located within such state, such regional facility shall remain available to the region for four years after the date the commission receives verification in writing from the Governor of such party state of the rescission of the Compact". [9]

The commission, in response to the complaint by Florida and Tennessee, demanded in December 1999 that, in addition to other monetary penalties, North Carolina repay approximately $80 million. The commission believed that, under article 7(F) of the original Compact, it had the power to level such monetary sanctions. [10] However, North Carolina disagreed, and refused to comply with the commission's sanctions.

Case history

In 2003, the Supreme Court allowed Alabama, Florida, Tennessee, and Virginia (the only four remaining members of the Compact), and the commission to sue North Carolina under the Court's original jurisdiction. [1] [7] The plaintiffs requested "monetary and other relief, including a declaration that North Carolina is subject to sanctions and that the commission's sanctions resolution is valid and enforceable." [11] The case was assigned to a special master, [12] who filed two reports.

In January 2010, the Supreme Court heard oral arguments regarding the exceptions to the reports that were filed by both parties. [13]

Decision

The Supreme Court overruled all of the states' objections to the Special Master's Reports. It held that the Compact did not give the commission the power to impose monetary sanctions against North Carolina; that the Court did not need to follow the commission's findings regarding North Carolina's supposed breach of its obligations; that North Carolina did not breach its obligations to take "appropriate steps" towards getting a license; and that North Carolina was allowed to withdraw from the Compact. [1]

The Court remanded the remainder of the case back to the Special Master to further adjudicate the equitable claims raised by the petitioners. [14]

Subsequent history

In January 2011, the case was dismissed by agreement of the parties. [15] [16]

Related Research Articles

<span class="mw-page-title-main">Tenth Amendment to the United States Constitution</span> 1791 amendment enumerating states rights

The Tenth Amendment to the United States Constitution, a part of the Bill of Rights, was ratified on December 15, 1791. It expresses the principle of federalism, also known as states' rights, by stating that the federal government has only those powers delegated to it by the Constitution, and that all other powers not forbidden to the states by the Constitution are reserved to each state.

<span class="mw-page-title-main">Yucca Mountain nuclear waste repository</span> Unused deep geological repository facility in Nevada, US

The Yucca Mountain Nuclear Waste Repository, as designated by the Nuclear Waste Policy Act amendments of 1987, is a proposed deep geological repository storage facility within Yucca Mountain for spent nuclear fuel and other high-level radioactive waste in the United States. The site is on federal land adjacent to the Nevada Test Site in Nye County, Nevada, about 80 mi (130 km) northwest of the Las Vegas Valley.

The Dormant Commerce Clause, or Negative Commerce Clause, in American constitutional law, is a legal doctrine that courts in the United States have inferred from the Commerce Clause in Article I of the US Constitution. The primary focus of the doctrine is barring state protectionism. The Dormant Commerce Clause is used to prohibit state legislation that discriminates against, or unduly burdens, interstate or international commerce. Courts first determine whether a state regulation discriminates on its face against interstate commerce or whether it has the purpose or effect of discriminating against interstate commerce. If the statute is discriminatory, the state has the burden to justify both the local benefits flowing from the statute and to show the state has no other means of advancing the legitimate local purpose.

In the United States, an interstate compact is a pact or agreement between two or more states, or between states and any foreign government. The Compact Clause of the United States Constitution provides that "No State shall, without the Consent of Congress,... enter into any Agreement or Compact with another State, or with a foreign Power,..."

<span class="mw-page-title-main">Low-level waste</span>

Low-level waste (LLW) or Low-level radioactive waste (LLRW) is nuclear waste that does not fit into the categorical definitions for intermediate-level waste (ILW), high-level waste (HLW), spent nuclear fuel (SNF), transuranic waste (TRU), or certain byproduct materials known as 11e(2) wastes, such as uranium mill tailings. In essence, it is a definition by exclusion, and LLW is that category of radioactive wastes that do not fit into the other categories. If LLW is mixed with hazardous wastes as classified by RCRA, then it has a special status as mixed low-level waste (MLLW) and must satisfy treatment, storage, and disposal regulations both as LLW and as hazardous waste. While the bulk of LLW is not highly radioactive, the definition of LLW does not include references to its activity, and some LLW may be quite radioactive, as in the case of radioactive sources used in industry and medicine.

<span class="mw-page-title-main">Savannah River Site</span> Nuclear reservation in the US

The Savannah River Site (SRS) is a U.S. Department of Energy (DOE) reservation in the United States in the state of South Carolina, located on land in Aiken, Allendale, and Barnwell counties adjacent to the Savannah River, 25 miles (40 km) southeast of Augusta, Georgia. The site was built during the 1950s to refine nuclear materials for deployment in nuclear weapons. It covers 310 square miles (800 km2) and employs more than 10,000 people.

<span class="mw-page-title-main">William H. Pryor Jr.</span> American judge (born 1962)

William Holcombe Pryor Jr. is an American lawyer currently serving as the chief judge of the United States Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit. He is a former commissioner of the United States Sentencing Commission. Previously, he was the attorney general of Alabama, from 1997 to 2004.

<span class="mw-page-title-main">Nuclear Waste Policy Act</span> 1982 United States federal law

The Nuclear Waste Policy Act of 1982 is a United States federal law which established a comprehensive national program for the safe, permanent disposal of highly radioactive wastes.

New York v. United States, 505 U.S. 144 (1992), was a decision of the United States Supreme Court. Justice Sandra Day O'Connor, writing for the majority, found that the federal government may not require states to “take title” to radioactive waste through the "Take Title" provision of the Low-Level Radioactive Waste Policy Amendments Act, which the Court found to exceeded Congress's power under the Commerce Clause. The Court permitted the federal government to induce shifts in state waste policy through other means.

The Central Interstate Low Level Radioactive Waste Compact is made up of the states of Louisiana, Arkansas, Oklahoma, and Kansas. The compact was established by the "Compact Law" and the "Low-Level Radioactive Waste Policy Amendments of the 1985."

Chemical Waste Management, Inc. v. Hunt, 504 U.S. 334 (1992), was a United States Supreme Court case that held that an Alabama law imposing a fee on out-of-state hazardous waste being disposed of in-state violated the Dormant Commerce Clause.

United Haulers Ass'n v. Oneida-Herkimer Solid Waste Management Authority, 550 U.S. 330 (2007), was a United States Supreme Court case about interstate commerce. Chief Justice John Roberts wrote the opinion of the Court, holding that New York county ordinances forcing private waste management companies to deliver waste to a public facility did not discriminate against interstate commerce. Justice Samuel Alito wrote a dissent.

<span class="mw-page-title-main">High-level radioactive waste management</span> Management and disposal of highly radioactive materials

High-level radioactive waste management concerns how radioactive materials created during production of nuclear power and nuclear weapons are dealt with. Radioactive waste contains a mixture of short-lived and long-lived nuclides, as well as non-radioactive nuclides. There was reportedly some 47,000 tonnes of high-level nuclear waste stored in the United States in 2002.

<span class="mw-page-title-main">Mike Lee</span> American lawyer and politician (born 1971)

Michael Shumway Lee is an American lawyer and politician serving as the senior United States senator from Utah, a seat he has held since 2011. He is a member of the Republican Party.

State of Alabama v. State of Georgia, 64 U.S. 505 (1860), is a unanimous ruling by the Supreme Court of the United States which held that the true border between the states of Alabama and Georgia was the average water mark on the western bank of the Chattahoochee River. In coming to its conclusion, the Court defined what constituted the bed and bank of a river. The case has had international repercussions as well. The Supreme Court's definition was adopted by courts in the United Kingdom in the case Hindson v. Ashby (1896) 65 LJ Ch. 515, 2 Ch. 27.

Waste Control Specialists LLC (WCS) is a treatment, storage, & disposal company dealing in radioactive, hazardous, and mixed wastes. Developed and controlled by Texas billionaire investor Harold Simmons until his death at the end of 2013, the company was founded in Dallas, Texas in 1989 as a landfill operator, and awarded a unique license for disposal of low level radioactive waste in 2009. Its main operations are in Andrews County, Texas.

<span class="mw-page-title-main">Tri-state water dispute</span> Water use conflict in the southeastern United States

The tri-state water dispute is a 21st-century water-use conflict among the U.S. states of Georgia, Alabama, and Florida over flows in the Apalachicola-Chattahoochee-Flint River Basin and the Alabama-Coosa-Tallapoosa River Basin. The U.S. Army Corps of Engineers has regulated water flow for the entire Chattahoochee River, from Lake Lanier in Forsyth County, Georgia, to Alabama and Florida.

Radioactive waste is generated from the nuclear weapons program, commercial nuclear power, medical applications, and corporate and university-based research programs. Some of the materials LLW consists of are: "gloves and other protective clothing, glass and plastic laboratory supplies, machine parts and tools, and disposable medical items that have come in contact with radioactive materials". Waste is generally categorized as high level waste (HLW) and low-level waste (LLW). LLW contains materials such as irradiated tools, lab clothing, ion exchanger resins, animal carcasses, and trash from defense, commercial nuclear power, medical, and research activities. These materials usually have radioactivity that have short half lives—from ranges of multiple days to several hundred years. In 1990, 1.1 million cubic feet of LLW was produced. Currently, U.S. reactors generate about 40,000 cubic meters of low-level radioactive waste per year, including contaminated components and materials resulting from reactor decommissioning.

The Yellowstone River Compact is an interstate compact that was entered into by Montana, North Dakota, and Wyoming and ratified in 1950 for the purpose of providing for an equitable division and apportionment of the waters of the Yellowstone River and its tributaries, encouraging mutually beneficial development and use of the Yellowstone River Basin's waters, and furthering intergovernment cooperation between the three states. The Compact became effective in 1951 and provided for the creation of the Yellowstone River Compact Commission to administer the provisions of the Compact as between the states of Montana and Wyoming.

Florida v. Georgia, 585 U.S. ___ (2018), was a decision by the Supreme Court of the United States in an original jurisdiction case. It involves a long-running dispute over waters within the ACF River Basin, running from the north Georgia mountains through metro Atlanta to the Florida panhandle, which is managed by the United States Army Corps of Engineers. Waters in the area have been stressed by the population growth of Atlanta over previous decades. The immediate case stemmed from droughts in 2011 and 2012 that caused economic damage to Florida due to lower water flows from the ACF River Basin into the panhandle, impacting its seafood production; Florida sought relief to have more water allocated towards them from the ACF by placing a water allocation cap on Georgia. The Supreme Court assigned a special master to review Florida's complaint, but ultimately found in 2016 that Florida had not fully demonstrated the need for more allocation. Florida challenged this determination to the Supreme Court. On June 27, 2018, the Supreme Court ruled 5–4 that the special master had not properly considered Florida's argument and remanded the case to be reheard and reviewed.

References

  1. 1 2 3 4 Alabama v. North Carolina, 560U.S.330 (2010).
  2. "NRC: Governing Legislation". www.nrc.gov. Archived from the original on November 20, 2018. Retrieved November 22, 2018.
  3. "Public Law 96-573: Low-Level Radioactive Waste Policy Act" (PDF). Office of the Law Revision Counsel of the United States House of Representatives. Archived (PDF) from the original on February 10, 2017.
  4. Ashe, A. Marice (March 1993). "The Low-Level Radioactive Waste Policy Act and the Tenth Amendment: A Paragon of Legislative Success or a Failure of Accountability". Ecology Law Quarterly. 20. Archived from the original on November 23, 2018. Retrieved December 10, 2018 via Law Journals and Related Materials at Berkeley Law Scholarship Repository.
  5. "About Us – Southeast Compact Commission – Low-Level Radioactive Waste Management". secompact.org. Archived from the original on September 3, 2018. Retrieved November 20, 2018.
  6. Woodward, Kathleen (1986). "Low-Level Radioactive Waste: Southeast Progress Report". William and Mary Journal of Environmental Law and Environmental Practice News: 1–4. Archived from the original on December 4, 2018. Retrieved December 10, 2018 via Hein Online Law Journal Library.
  7. 1 2 3 "Rights of states under waste disposal compact - SCOTUSblog". SCOTUSblog. January 11, 2010. Archived from the original on November 25, 2018. Retrieved November 20, 2018.
  8. "An act to withdraw North Carolina from the Southeast Interstate Low-Level Radioactive Waste Management Compact, to limit the authority of the Low-Level Radioactive Waste Management Authority and to direct the Radiation Protection Commission to study and formulate a plan for low-level radioactive waste management". Act No. 1999-357 of 1999 (PDF). Archived from the original (PDF) on June 6, 2013. Retrieved November 20, 2018.
  9. "Virginia Compacts - Southeast Interstate Low-Level Radioactive Waste Management Compact". law.lis.virginia.gov. Archived from the original on July 26, 2017. Retrieved November 20, 2018.
  10. Motions and Policies of the Southeast Compact Commission (PDF (download only)) (List by date of enactment.)
  11. Alabama v. North Carolina, 539U.S. , 925(U.S.2003)("Motion for leave to file bill of complaint granted.").
  12. Alabama v. North Carolina, 540U.S. , 1014(U.S.2003).
  13. "A good day for North Carolina? - SCOTUSblog". SCOTUSblog. January 14, 2010. Archived from the original on October 1, 2015. Retrieved November 20, 2018.
  14. "Report of the Nuclear Regulation Committee". Energy Law Journal. 31: 667–704. 2010. Archived from the original on December 4, 2018. Retrieved December 10, 2018 via Hein Online Law Journal Library.
  15. Alabama v. North Carolina, 562U.S. , 1175(January 18, 2011).
  16. "Rules of the Supreme Court of the United States" (PDF). July 1, 2019. Retrieved August 10, 2019.

PD-icon.svg This article incorporates text from this source, which is in the public domain : Alabama et al. v. North Carolina (2010), Slip Opinion