City of Philadelphia v. New Jersey

Citation97 S.Ct. 987,430 U.S. 141,51 L.Ed.2d 224
Decision Date23 February 1977
Docket NumberNo. 75-1150,75-1150
PartiesCITY OF PHILADELPHIA et al., Appellants, v. State of NEW JERSEY et al
CourtUnited States Supreme Court

PER CURIAM.

This suit challenges the constitutionality of a New Jersey statute prohibiting any person from bringing into New Jersey "any solid or liquid waste which originated or was collected outside the territorial limits of the State" except garbage to be fed to swine. 1973 N.J.Laws, c. 363. The New Jersey Supreme Court held that the Act was not pre-empted by a federal statute addressing questions of waste disposal, the Solid Waste Disposal Act of 1965, 79 Stat. 997, 42 U.S.C. § 3251 et seq. (1970 ed. and Supp. V), and was not unconstitutional as discriminating against or placing an undue burden on interstate commerce. Hackensack Meadowlands Dev. Comm'n v. Muncipal Landfill Authority, 68 N.J. 451, 348 A.2d 505 (1975). We noted probable jurisdiction on April 5, 1976, 425 U.S. 910, 96 S.Ct. 1504, 47 L.Ed.2d 760.

On October 21, 1976, the Resource Conservation and Recovery Act of 1976, 90 Stat. 2795, 42 U.S.C. § 6901 et seq. (1976 ed.), became law. The parties at the Court's request supplemented their briefs to address the question of the impact of the new federal statute on the New Jersey Act. Appellants argue that the Federal Act displaces the New Jersey law, and appellees argue that it does not pre-empt or in any way undercut the validity of the New Jersey legislation. While federal pre-emption of state statutes is, of course, ultimately a question under the Supremacy Clause, U.S.Const., Art. VI, cl. 2, analysis of pre-emption issues depends primarily on statutory and not constitutional interpretation. Therefore, it is appropriate that the federal pre-emption issue be resolved before the constitutional issue of alleged discrimination against or undue burden on interstate commerce is addressed. We think it appropriate that we have the views of the New Jersey Supreme Court on the question whether or to what extent the Resource Conservation and Recovery Act of 1976 pre-empts the New Jersey statute. The judgment of the New Jersey Supreme Court is therefore vacated, and the case is remanded for reconsideration in light of that Act.

So ordered.

Mr. Justice POWELL, with whom THE CHIEF JUSTICE, Mr. Justice STEWART, and Mr. Justice REHNQUIST join, dissenting.

The Resource Conservation and Recovery Act of 1976, 42 U.S.C. § 6901 et seq. (1976 ed.), evidences a federal con- cern with the growing problem of waste disposal in this country. This complex statute attempts to deal with this problem in a variety of ways. Because the impact of the statute will depend in part on the...

To continue reading

Request your trial
22 cases
  • Goulet v. Schweiker
    • United States
    • U.S. District Court — District of Vermont
    • February 24, 1983
  • Starnes v. Schweiker
    • United States
    • U.S. Court of Appeals — Fourth Circuit
    • August 16, 1983
  • Association of American Medical Colleges v. Califano
    • United States
    • U.S. Court of Appeals — District of Columbia Circuit
    • December 1, 1977
  • Don't Tear It Down, Inc. v. Pennsylvania Ave. Development Corp.
    • United States
    • U.S. Court of Appeals — District of Columbia Circuit
    • October 2, 1980
    ...of pre-emption issues depends primarily on statutory and not constitutional interpretation." Philadelphia v. New Jersey, 430 U.S. 141, 142, 97 S.Ct. 987, 988, 51 L.Ed.2d 224, 226 (1977).67 See text supra at note 30.68 See text supra at note 32. Compare Hancock v. Train, 426 U.S. 167, 180, 9......
  • Request a trial to view additional results

VLEX uses login cookies to provide you with a better browsing experience. If you click on 'Accept' or continue browsing this site we consider that you accept our cookie policy. ACCEPT