New York v. United States
Supreme Court rules that a federal nuclear waste disposal law intrudes on state sovereignty in violation of the Tenth Amendment
Status: Final
Discussion & Analysis: The Low-Level Radioactive Waste Policy Amendments Act, passed by Congress in 1985, required states, either alone or in regional compacts with other states, to establish radioactive waste disposal sites. To encourage states without existing sites to provide for disposal of waste within their borders, the Act created a set of three incentives. New York filed suit against the United States, arguing that the incentive provisions violated the Tenth Amendment. The Supreme Court agreed that one of the incentives—the so-called “take title” incentive—was unconstitutional.
Writing for the majority, Justice O’Connor framed the opinion in terms of constitutional boundaries between congressional power and state sovereignty. The Court upheld two of the Act’s incentive provisions as a permissible exercise of Congressional authority under the Commerce Clause. However, it found the “take title” incentive to be an impermissible intrusion on state sovereignty reserved by the Tenth Amendment. This incentive presented states with the option of either regulating radioactive waste according to congressional standards, or taking title and possession of the waste and bearing liability for all damages incurred by waste generators as a consequence of the state’s failure to take possession promptly.
The majority struck down this provision for two reasons. First, the “take title” provision amounted to coercion, and attempted to “commandeer” the state legislative process “by directly compelling [states] to enact and enforce a federal regulatory program.” According to the majority, “Congress has the power to regulate private activity under the Commerce Clause[,]” but it may not “coerce” states to enact federal regulations. Second, the Court explained that by allowing the federal government to commandeer state officials, they, rather than the federal government, would become politically accountable for the federal scheme. The Court reasoned that “[w]here Congress encourages state regulation rather than compelling it, state governments remain accountable to the people.” By contrast, where the federal government compels states to regulate, as was the case here, the accountability of both state and federal officials is diminished.
New York v. United States represents at least a partial resuscitation of Tenth Amendment doctrine in the modern era. While characterizing the Tenth Amendment as “essentially a tautology,” the Court in New York nonetheless understood it to confirm “that the power of the Federal Government is subject to limits that may, in a given instance, reserve power to the States.” Since this case was decided, only one other provision of a federal environmental law has been held to violate the Tenth Amendment (see below). However, states seeking to avoid federal environmental regulation continue to argue that the Tenth Amendment exempts them from compliance, and it remains to be seen what direction the Supreme Court, as presently constituted, will take with its Tenth Amendment jurisprudence
Key Opinions: New York v. United States, 505 U.S.144 (1992).
See Also: Wyoming v. United States Department of the Interior, 360 F.Supp.2d 1214 (D. Wyo. 2005) (holding that the Department of the Interior and the Fish and Wildlife Service did not violate the Tenth Amendment by demanding that Wyoming change its wolf management plan to comport with the Endangered Species Act); and Acorn v. Edwards, 81 F.3d 1387 (5th Cir. 1996), cert denied, 521 U.S. 1129 (1997) (holding that a provision of the Safe Drinking Water Act requiring states to regulate non-lead-free drinking water coolers violated the Tenth Amendment).
 |