City of Philadelphia v. New Jersey
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
| Philadelphia v. New Jersey | |||||||||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
 |
|||||||||||
| Argued March 27, 1978 Decided June 23, 1978 |
|||||||||||
|
|||||||||||
| Holding | |||||||||||
| States can not discriminate against another state's articles of commerce. | |||||||||||
| Court membership | |||||||||||
| Chief Justice: Warren E. Burger Associate Justices: William J. Brennan, Potter Stewart, Byron White, Thurgood Marshall, Harry Blackmun, Lewis Franklin Powell, Jr., William Rehnquist, John Paul Stevens |
|||||||||||
| Case opinions | |||||||||||
| Majority by: Stewart Joined by: Brennan, White, Marshall, Blackmun, Powell, Stevens Dissent by: Rehnquist Joined by: Burger |
|||||||||||
| Laws applied | |||||||||||
| U.S. Const. art. I ยง 8 cl. 3 (Commerce Clause), Dormant Commerce Clause | |||||||||||
City of Philadelphia v. New Jersey, , was a case in which the Supreme Court of the United States held that states could not discriminate against another state's articles of commerce.
[edit] The Dispute
In this 1978 case, the Supreme Court invalidated a 1973 New Jersey law that prohibited most "solid or liquid waste which originated or was collected outside the territorial limits" of New Jersey from being imported into the state. Challenging the ban were Philadelphia, as well as private landfill operators in New Jersey and several cities outside the Garden State.
[edit] Court's Findings
The Court found the law unconstitutional because it violated the Dormant Commerce Clause. In writing for the majority, Justice Stewart concluded that
- "whatever New Jersey's ultimate purpose, it may not be accomplished by discriminating against articles of commerce coming from outside the State unless there is some reason, apart from their origin, to treat them differently."
In other words, New Jersey couldn't regulate beyond its borders.
Furthermore, the court held that legitimate local interests which had incidental interstate effects were within the state's general police powers, but protectionist legislation per se that is enacted by the state would be considered invalid.
[edit] External links
- ^ 437 U.S. 617 Full text of the opinion courtesy of Findlaw.com.
- Summary of case from OYEZ
This article related to a U.S. Supreme Court case is a stub. You can help Wikipedia by expanding it.
