Home › Case briefs › Constitutional Law

New York v. United States

Supreme Court of the United States · 1992 · Constitutional Law

federalismanti-commandeeringTenth Amendmentradioactive wasteCommerce ClauseSpending ClauseGuarantee ClauseCongress may regulate individuals not states

Facts

Congress enacted the 1985 Act to address a national shortage of low-level radioactive waste disposal sites and to encourage each State to provide for disposal of waste generated within its borders. The Act used three incentives: monetary payments tied to compliance with statutory milestones, access restrictions allowing sited States to impose surcharges and deny access to noncompliant States, and a take title provision requiring a State that failed to provide disposal capacity to take title to the waste and assume liability for damages. New York did not join a regional compact but enacted legislation to site and finance its own disposal facility, then challenged the constitutionality of the Act. The case concerned whether Congress had merely encouraged state action or had impermissibly compelled States to regulate.

Issue

Whether Congress, consistent with the Constitution's allocation of authority between the Federal Government and the States, may compel States to provide for disposal of low-level radioactive waste generated within their borders through the Act's incentive provisions. More specifically, whether the monetary incentives, access incentives, and take title provision are permissible encouragements or unconstitutional commands to the States.

Rule

Congress may encourage States to adopt federal policy through conditional spending and by offering the choice of regulating private activity under federal standards or having state law pre-empted by federal regulation. But Congress may not commandeer the legislative processes of the States by directly compelling them to enact or administer a federal regulatory program; a choice between two unconstitutional commands is no constitutional choice at all.

🔒

See the holding & full analysis

Create a free KwikCourt account to unlock the rest of this brief — and practice the case.

The court's holding and reasoning
Doctrine tests, pitfalls & exam hypotheticals
10 practice questions + 4 AI-graded essays on this case

Free sample · practice this case

Test yourself

One of 10 multiple-choice questions for this case. Pick an answer to see why.

Congress enacts the Coastal Plastics Control Act after finding that drifting plastic waste affects interstate shipping. The Act requires every state legislature to enact, within 18 months, a statute licensing plastic pellet manufacturers under federally specified standards, and it provides no federal fallback program and no funding condition.

A manufacturer in Ohio challenges the Act after Ohio declines to pass the required statute. Which is the strongest constitutional assessment?

Explanation. The majority drew a sharp line between regulating private actors directly and commanding States to govern according to federal instructions. Even where Congress has commerce power over the underlying activity, it may not commandeer the legislative processes of the States by directly compelling them to enact and enforce a federal regulatory program. The existence of a strong federal interest does not create authority to issue such commands.