Fort Gratiot Sanitary Landfill, Inc. v. Michigan Department of Natural Resources
The Court struck down a Michigan law letting counties refuse to accept trash from outside their own borders, ruling that the restriction discriminated against interstate commerce just as an earlier New Jersey trash-import ban had.
The decision makes clear that states cannot dodge the Constitution's limits on blocking interstate trade simply by imposing the barrier at the county level instead of the state level.
“In each of these cases, a presumably legitimate goal was sought to be achieved by the illegitimate means of isolating the State from the national economy.”
Explaining why Michigan's county-level waste ban repeats a pattern of unconstitutional economic isolationism.
How it got here: A federal trial court and the Sixth Circuit both upheld the Michigan law; the landfill operator asked the Supreme Court to review that ruling.
The Case in Depth
What happened
A private company operated a licensed landfill in St. Clair County, Michigan, and wanted to accept up to 1,750 tons of out-of-state waste per day. Michigan's waste law, as amended in 1988, barred landfills from taking waste generated outside the county unless the county's own disposal plan specifically allowed it. St. Clair County's plan did not allow outside waste, so the company sued, arguing the restriction unlawfully blocked interstate commerce.
The question before the Court
Could Michigan let each county ban private landfills from accepting trash generated outside that county, including trash from other states?
The Court's answer
No — the Court ruled Michigan could not let counties refuse landfill waste just because it came from outside the county (including from other states). Applying its 1978 decision in Philadelphia v. New Jersey, the Court explained that laws discriminating against out-of-state commerce are unconstitutional unless the state proves the discrimination serves a health or safety purpose that could not be achieved any other way.
Michigan argued its law was different because it also restricted waste moving between Michigan counties, not just waste from other states, and because it was part of a broader health-and-safety program. The Court rejected both arguments: burdening some in-state parties alongside out-of-staters doesn't cure discrimination against interstate commerce, and Michigan never showed that treating outside waste differently was actually necessary to protect health or safety.
Curious how the Court got there? See the step-by-step legal reasoning →
Why it matters
Private landfill operators can no longer be walled off from out-of-state customers by local import bans, which affects waste-disposal markets nationwide. States and counties trying to manage limited landfill space must find non-discriminatory ways to do so, such as capping total volume, rather than singling out waste based on where it came from.
What changes now
This is a final merits decision, not a temporary order. The Sixth Circuit's ruling upholding the Michigan law is reversed, meaning the Waste Import Restrictions cannot be enforced against private landfill operators like the petitioner. Michigan and other states must look for non-discriminatory ways, such as overall volume caps, to manage limited landfill capacity going forward.
What this does not decide
The ruling applies only to privately owned and operated landfills; it does not address waste-management policies for publicly owned facilities, hazardous waste rules, or any claim that the landfill violated health or safety standards, none of which were at issue in this case.
Concurrences and dissents
Dissent — Justice Rehnquist
“Because I think the Michigan statute is at least arguably directed to legitimate local concerns, rather than improper economic protectionism, I would remand this case for further proceedings.”Rehnquist's core objection that the majority struck down the law without letting Michigan defend it as health and safety regulation.
Chief Justice Rehnquist argued the Michigan law was part of a comprehensive, good-faith regulatory scheme addressing real environmental and safety problems, not simple economic protectionism, and that the county-of-origin requirement reflected a reasonable 'you made it, you handle it' policy. He would have remanded to let Michigan present evidence that the restrictions served legitimate health and safety goals rather than striking the law down outright.
How the Court got there
The legal reasoning, step by step
- The Court applied its 1978 ruling in Philadelphia v. New Jersey, which held that a state cannot ban the importation of out-of-state trash unless it has a reason, apart from where the trash came from, to treat it differently — because doing so violates the Commerce Clause's ban on states favoring their own economic interests over interstate trade.
- The Court rejected the argument that Michigan's law was different because it discriminated against other Michigan counties too, not just other states, explaining that prior cases (a Virginia meat-inspection law and a Wisconsin milk ordinance) already held that a law burdening some in-state residents along with out-of-state competitors is still unconstitutional discrimination against interstate commerce.
- The Court also rejected the claim that the law was a neutral health-and-safety measure rather than economic protectionism, noting that a state defending a discriminatory law must prove the discrimination serves health or safety goals that could not be achieved without treating outside waste differently, and Michigan offered no such proof.
- Because Michigan could have addressed its planning concerns by simply capping how much waste any landfill could accept overall, without treating in-state and out-of-state waste differently, the county-by-county ban on outside waste was not a necessary health or safety measure.
- The Court concluded that the Waste Import Restrictions were protectionist measures that discriminated against interstate commerce without adequate justification, so they could not survive Commerce Clause scrutiny.
Doctrinal impact
Cases affected by this decision
Reaffirms Philadelphia v. New Jersey (437 U.S. 617)
The Court relies on and extends this 1978 ruling striking down a state ban on importing out-of-state trash.
Reaffirms Brimmer v. Rebman (138 U.S. 78)
Cited to show a law burdening in-state residents too can still discriminate against interstate commerce.
Reaffirms Dean Milk Co. v. Madison (340 U.S. 349)
Cited to show a facially neutral local ordinance can still unconstitutionally burden interstate commerce.
Distinguishes Sporhase v. Nebraska ex rel. Douglas (458 U.S. 941)
The Court says Nebraska's water case does not apply because landfills, unlike water, are not publicly owned resources.
Distinguishes Maine v. Taylor (477 U.S. 131)
Unlike Maine's baitfish ban, Michigan showed no health risk unique to out-of-county waste justifying different treatment.