New York v. United States
120 L. Ed. 2d 120 · Supreme Court of the United States · 1992
Facts
The United States faced a growing problem of low-level radioactive waste disposal, with only three operational sites remaining by 1979. These sites, located in Nevada, Washington, and South Carolina, faced temporary closures and threats of permanent shutdown, leading to a national crisis. In response, Congress passed the Low-Level Radioactive Waste Policy Act of 1980, making States responsible for disposal and allowing regional compacts to restrict access. When this proved insufficient, Congress enacted the Low-Level Radioactive Waste Policy Amendments Act of 1985, which included three types of incentives for States to manage their waste: monetary rewards for meeting disposal milestones, denial of access to existing disposal sites for non-compliant States, and a "take title" provision requiring States to take ownership of waste and liability for damages if they failed to provide disposal capacity by 1996. New York, a significant waste generator, sued the United States, challenging the constitutionality of these provisions.
Procedural history
Petitioners, the State of New York and two counties, filed suit against the United States in the District Court, which dismissed the complaint. The Court of Appeals affirmed the District Court's decision. Petitioners then appealed to the Supreme Court, having abandoned their due process and Eleventh Amendment claims, leaving only the Tenth Amendment and Guarantee Clause claims for review.
Issue
Does the Low-Level Radioactive Waste Policy Amendments Act of 1985, particularly its monetary incentives, access incentives, and "take title" provision, violate the Tenth Amendment by compelling States to regulate or administer a federal program, or the Guarantee Clause by denying States a republican form of government?
Holding
The Court held that the monetary incentives and access incentives provisions of the Act are constitutional, as they represent permissible exercises of Congress's spending and commerce powers, offering States a choice rather than coercion. However, the "take title" provision is unconstitutional because it directly compels States to either regulate according to federal instructions or take ownership and liability for radioactive waste, thereby "commandeering" state legislative processes in violation of the Tenth Amendment. The unconstitutional "take title" provision is severable from the rest of the Act.
Rule
The Tenth Amendment reserves powers not delegated to the Federal Government to the States, meaning Congress cannot "commandeer" the legislative processes of the States by directly compelling them to enact and enforce a federal regulatory program. While Congress has substantial power to encourage States to adopt federal policies through conditional spending (attaching conditions to federal funds) or cooperative federalism (offering States the choice to regulate according to federal standards or face federal pre-emption), it cannot compel States to regulate. A choice between two unconstitutional regulatory techniques (e.g., directly ordering States to take title to waste or directly ordering them to regulate) is no choice at all and constitutes unconstitutional coercion. State officials cannot consent to an unconstitutional enlargement of Congress's powers.
Read the full opinion on CourtListener
Case brief last reviewed . Prepared by CaseReader from the published opinion.