NEW YORK V. UNITED STATES 505 U.S. 144 (1992) CASE BRIEF

NEW YORK V. UNITED STATES

505 U.S. 144 (1992)

NATURE OF THE CASE: This was a case involving the federal regulation of the disposal of radioactive waste generated within State boundaries under the Low-Level Radioactive Waste Policy Amendments Act of 1985.

FACT SUMMARY: Congress passed the Low-Level Radioactive Waste Policy Amendments Act of 1985. The Act provides three types of incentives to encourage the States to comply with their statutory obligation to provide for the disposal of waste generated within their borders.

Monetary incentives. One quarter of the surcharges collected by the sited States must be transferred to an escrow account held by the Secretary of Energy. The Secretary then makes payments from this account to each State that has complied with a series of deadlines. Access incentives. The second type of incentive involves the denial of access to disposal sites. States that fail to meet the July, 1986, deadline may be charged twice the ordinary surcharge for the remainder of 1986, and may be denied access to disposal facilities thereafter. 3. The take title provision. Penalties. If a State where the waste is generated is unable to provide for its disposal each State in which such waste is generated, upon the request of the generator or owner of the waste, shall take title to the waste, and be liable for all damages directly or indirectly incurred by such generator or owner as a consequence of the failure of the State to take possession.

New York was unable to provide for disposal of its own radioactive waste by 1996 as required by the Act and challenged the constitutionality of that Act. The State of New York and the two counties (P) filed this suit against the United States in 1990. They sought a declaratory judgment that the Act is inconsistent with the Tenth and Eleventh Amendments to the Constitution, with the Due Process Clause of the Fifth Amendment, and with the Guarantee Clause of Article IV of the Constitution. The States of Washington, Nevada, and South Carolina intervened as defendants. The District Court dismissed the complaint. The Court of Appeals affirmed. Ps claim only that the Act is inconsistent with the Tenth Amendment and the Guarantee Clause. The Supreme Court granted certiorari.

ISSUE:

RULE OF LAW:

HOLDING AND DECISION:

LEGAL ANALYSIS:

Get free access to the entire content for Mac, PC or Online

for 2-3 days and free samples of all kinds of products.

https://bsmsphd.com

© 2007-2016 Abn Study Partner