An Update of Flow Control Jurisprudence since United Haulers

by Nexsen Pruet, PLLC
Contact

Since United Haulers Association v. Oneida-Herkimer Solid Waste Management Authority, 550 U.S. 330, 344 (2007), most courts have upheld local flow control ordinances as constitutional under that holding.  Plaintiffs in the cases since United Haulers have asserted a multitude of arguments in an attempt to invalidate flow control ordinances; however, most of these arguments have been unsuccessful. National Solid Wastes Management Association v. City of Dallas has been the only case since United Haulers in which the court found a flow control ordinance unconstitutional.  That decision was based on violations of the Due Process Clause and Contract Clause.

The Dormant Commerce Clause

Plaintiffs’ efforts to factually distinguish their Dormant Commerce Clause claims from the holding in United Haulers have not been successful.  In Sandlands C & D v. County of Horry, the Fourth Circuit held that the flow control ordinance at issue did not discriminate against interstate commerce because it required haulers to dispose of solid waste at publicly-owned facilities and, therefore, treated all privately-owned facilities the same.  Sandlands C & D v. County of Horry, 737 F.3d 45, 52 (4th Cir. 2013).   The Fourth Circuit also upheld the ordinance under the Pike balancing test based on the same reasoning as the Supreme Court in United Haulers. Id. at 53.  The Court said that the insignificant effects the ordinance had on interstate commerce were outweighed by its substantial public benefits.  Id. at 53-54.  Additionally, the South Carolina Supreme Court had also ruled on a certified question concluding that the flow control ordinance was not preempted by State law governing solid waste management.  Sandlands C & D, LLC v. County of Horry, 394 S.C. 451, 471, 716 S.E.2d 280, 290 (2011).

Similarly, the plaintiffs in C & A Carbone v. County of Rockland attempted to factually distinguish their claim from the Dormant Commerce Clause precedent in United Haulers by asserting that the facilities at issue were publicly owned, but not publicly operated.  C & A Carbone, Inc. v. County of Rockland, 2014 WL 1202699, at *7 (S.D.N.Y. Mar. 24, 2014).  However, the district court held that public ownership is sufficient to avoid a Dormant Commerce Clause violation.  Id.  The Court specifically stated that in United Haulers the Second Circuit focused on public ownership not on public ownership and operation.  Id.  The court in C & A Carbone also stated that the Supreme Court did not address this issue in the United Hauler decision even though it could have done so.  Id. at *8.   Once the district court established that public ownership was sufficient, it found that the ordinance did not violate the Dormant Commerce Clause for the same reasons as the Supreme Court in United Haulers and the Fourth Circuit in Sandlands.  Id.

The Equal Protection Clause

Violation of the Equal Protection Clause is another argument plaintiffs have asserted in flow control cases since United Haulers.  Plaintiffs in both JWJ Industries v. Oswego County, 538 F. App’x 11 (2nd Cir. 2013), and Sandlands failed on their Equal Protection claims.  “‘To succeed on an equal protection claim, a plaintiff must first demonstrate that he has been treated differently from others with whom he is similarly situated and that the unequal treatment was the result of intentional or purposeful discrimination.’”  Sandlands, 737 F.3d 45, 55 (4th Cir. 2013) (quoting Morrison v. Garraghty, 239 F.3d 648, 654 (4th Cir. 2001)).

JWJ Industries alleged that it was receiving unfair treatment because a competitor, Syracuse Haulers, was allowed to take source-separated material to a non-county facility, but the plaintiff was prohibited from taking non-separated material to a non-county facility.  JWJ Industries, Inc., 538 F. App’x at 14.  The Second Circuit found that the plaintiff was not “similarly situated” to Syracuse Haulers because Syracuse Haulers was disposing of separated materials, whereas the plaintiff was attempting to dispose of non-separated materials.  Id.  Without differential treatment of entities under the same circumstances, there is not a violation of the Equal Protection Clause.  Id.

In Sandlands, the plaintiff alleged that it was treated differently from another facility owned by the neighboring county.  Sandlands, 737 F.3d at 52.  The Fourth Circuit held that the plaintiff was not similarly situated to the other facility because the other facility was publicly owned and the plaintiff was privately owned.  Id. at 55.

The Contract Clause

Unlike the other post-United Haulers flow control cases, the plaintiffs in National Solid Wastes Management Association v. City of Dallas prevailed on constitutional claims challenging a flow control ordinance.   National Solid Wastes Management Ass’n v. City of Dallas, 903 F.Supp.2d 446 (N.D. Tex. 2012).  The district court in City of Dallas found the ordinance unconstitutional under the Contract Clause of the United States Constitution.  Id. at 456.   In ruling on a Contract Clause claim, the courts employ three-step analysis: (1) whether the law is a substantial impairment of a contractual relationship; (2) if it is a substantial impairment, whether there is a significant and legitimate public purpose behind the regulation; and (3) if there is a legitimate public purpose, whether the law is reasonably necessary to achieve this purpose.  

In City of Dallas, the City entered into franchise agreements with the plaintiffs before the flow control ordinance was enacted.  Id. at 453-54.  The court found that the flow control ordinance was a substantial impairment to the franchise agreements because the agreements allowed the franchisees to dispose of waste at any authorized facility but the ordinance required the franchisees to dispose only at city-owned facilities.  Id. at 458.  Even though the City claimed that the ordinance was enacted to serve numerous public purposes, the court found that it was enacted in order to raise revenue, which is not a legitimate public purpose.  Id. at 459 (citing to Preliminary Injunction Order at 19, National Solid Wastes Management Ass’n v. City of Dallas, No. 3:11-cv-3200-O (N.D. Tex. Jan. 31, 2012)).  Because the Court found that the ordinance did not serve a legitimate public purpose, it did not have to address the final prong of whether the law was necessary to achieve this purpose.  Id.

The Due Process Clause

In JWJ Industries, the plaintiffs also asserted a Due Process Clause claim.  The Second Circuit rejected that argument, finding that the ordinance did not directly restrict the plaintiffs’ rights. JWJ Industries, 538 F. App’x at 14.  Although the plaintiffs argued that the ordinance “adversely affected” their profitability, the Court found such claim not to be substantial enough to constitute a violation of due process.  Id.

In City of Dallas, the court held that the ordinance violated the Due Process Clause in the Texas Constitution, which states, “‘No citizen of this State shall be deprived of life, liberty, property, privileges or immunities, or in any manner disfranchised, except by the due course of the law of the land.’” City of Dallas, 903 F.Supp.2d at 459 (quoting Tex. Const. art I, § 19).  The court found that the franchise agreements vested rights in the plaintiffs and that the City could not impair those vested rights through an unreasonable exercise of police power.  Id. at 460.  The City’s purpose of raising revenue was an unreasonable exercise of police power; therefore, the Court held that the ordinance violated the Due Process Clause. Id

Vagueness

Plaintiffs have also argued that flow control ordinances are unconstitutionally vague. “A statute can be unconstitutionally vague if it (1) ‘fails to provide people of ordinary intelligence a reasonable opportunity to understand what conduct it prohibits,’ or (2) ‘authorizes or even encourages arbitrary and discriminatory enforcement.’” JWJ Industries, 538 F. App’x at 12 (quoting Hill v. Colorado, 530 U.S. 703, 732 (2000)).  JWJ Industries argued that the ordinance was vague in its entirety because it failed to state whether C & D debris was recyclable material, which could be disposed of at any facility, or if it was solid waste, which could only be disposed of at a County facility.  Id.  The Second Circuit held that that the ordinance was not unconstitutionally vague as a whole because someone of ordinary intelligence would understand that C & D was solid waste not recyclable material under the ordinance.  Id. at 13.  The Court based its conclusion on the ordinance’s reference to “unsorted” C & D debris, which contains both recyclable material and solid waste, and provides this type of material should be treated as solid waste.  Id.  If C & D debris was considered recyclable material, the ordinance would not distinguish recyclable material from C & D material as a whole.  Id.  Even though the Court did not find the ordinance unconstitutionally vague as a whole, it did uphold the district court’s decision that a section of the ordinance violated the second prong of the vagueness test.  Id. at 12.  This section authorized arbitrary enforcement because it allowed the program director to decide on a “case-by-case basis” whether a material was recyclable or not with no standard guidelines. Id.

In City of Dallas, the plaintiffs’ unconstitutional vagueness argument failed. The district Court held that common, well-understood words do not need to be defined in order to provide notice to people of ordinary intelligence. National Solid Wastes Management Ass’n v. City of Dallas, 903 F.Supp.2d 446, 466 (N.D. Tex. 2012). Also, the court held that the ordinance did not allow arbitrary enforcement because the director was constrained by express provisions of the ordinance. Id. at 468.

DISCLAIMER: Because of the generality of this update, the information provided herein may not be applicable in all situations and should not be acted upon without specific legal advice based on particular situations.

© Nexsen Pruet, PLLC | Attorney Advertising

Written by:

Nexsen Pruet, PLLC
Contact
more
less

Nexsen Pruet, PLLC on:

Readers' Choice 2017
Reporters on Deadline

"My best business intelligence, in one easy email…"

Your first step to building a free, personalized, morning email brief covering pertinent authors and topics on JD Supra:
Sign up using*

Already signed up? Log in here

*By using the service, you signify your acceptance of JD Supra's Privacy Policy.
Privacy Policy (Updated: October 8, 2015):
hide

JD Supra provides users with access to its legal industry publishing services (the "Service") through its website (the "Website") as well as through other sources. Our policies with regard to data collection and use of personal information of users of the Service, regardless of the manner in which users access the Service, and visitors to the Website are set forth in this statement ("Policy"). By using the Service, you signify your acceptance of this Policy.

Information Collection and Use by JD Supra

JD Supra collects users' names, companies, titles, e-mail address and industry. JD Supra also tracks the pages that users visit, logs IP addresses and aggregates non-personally identifiable user data and browser type. This data is gathered using cookies and other technologies.

The information and data collected is used to authenticate users and to send notifications relating to the Service, including email alerts to which users have subscribed; to manage the Service and Website, to improve the Service and to customize the user's experience. This information is also provided to the authors of the content to give them insight into their readership and help them to improve their content, so that it is most useful for our users.

JD Supra does not sell, rent or otherwise provide your details to third parties, other than to the authors of the content on JD Supra.

If you prefer not to enable cookies, you may change your browser settings to disable cookies; however, please note that rejecting cookies while visiting the Website may result in certain parts of the Website not operating correctly or as efficiently as if cookies were allowed.

Email Choice/Opt-out

Users who opt in to receive emails may choose to no longer receive e-mail updates and newsletters by selecting the "opt-out of future email" option in the email they receive from JD Supra or in their JD Supra account management screen.

Security

JD Supra takes reasonable precautions to insure that user information is kept private. We restrict access to user information to those individuals who reasonably need access to perform their job functions, such as our third party email service, customer service personnel and technical staff. However, please note that no method of transmitting or storing data is completely secure and we cannot guarantee the security of user information. Unauthorized entry or use, hardware or software failure, and other factors may compromise the security of user information at any time.

If you have reason to believe that your interaction with us is no longer secure, you must immediately notify us of the problem by contacting us at info@jdsupra.com. In the unlikely event that we believe that the security of your user information in our possession or control may have been compromised, we may seek to notify you of that development and, if so, will endeavor to do so as promptly as practicable under the circumstances.

Sharing and Disclosure of Information JD Supra Collects

Except as otherwise described in this privacy statement, JD Supra will not disclose personal information to any third party unless we believe that disclosure is necessary to: (1) comply with applicable laws; (2) respond to governmental inquiries or requests; (3) comply with valid legal process; (4) protect the rights, privacy, safety or property of JD Supra, users of the Service, Website visitors or the public; (5) permit us to pursue available remedies or limit the damages that we may sustain; and (6) enforce our Terms & Conditions of Use.

In the event there is a change in the corporate structure of JD Supra such as, but not limited to, merger, consolidation, sale, liquidation or transfer of substantial assets, JD Supra may, in its sole discretion, transfer, sell or assign information collected on and through the Service to one or more affiliated or unaffiliated third parties.

Links to Other Websites

This Website and the Service may contain links to other websites. The operator of such other websites may collect information about you, including through cookies or other technologies. If you are using the Service through the Website and link to another site, you will leave the Website and this Policy will not apply to your use of and activity on those other sites. We encourage you to read the legal notices posted on those sites, including their privacy policies. We shall have no responsibility or liability for your visitation to, and the data collection and use practices of, such other sites. This Policy applies solely to the information collected in connection with your use of this Website and does not apply to any practices conducted offline or in connection with any other websites.

Changes in Our Privacy Policy

We reserve the right to change this Policy at any time. Please refer to the date at the top of this page to determine when this Policy was last revised. Any changes to our privacy policy will become effective upon posting of the revised policy on the Website. By continuing to use the Service or Website following such changes, you will be deemed to have agreed to such changes. If you do not agree with the terms of this Policy, as it may be amended from time to time, in whole or part, please do not continue using the Service or the Website.

Contacting JD Supra

If you have any questions about this privacy statement, the practices of this site, your dealings with this Web site, or if you would like to change any of the information you have provided to us, please contact us at: info@jdsupra.com.

- hide
*With LinkedIn, you don't need to create a separate login to manage your free JD Supra account, and we can make suggestions based on your needs and interests. We will not post anything on LinkedIn in your name. Or, sign up using your email address.
Feedback? Tell us what you think of the new jdsupra.com!