Summary
The United States Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit affirmed summary judgment for Horry County and the Horry County Solid Waste Authority. The court held that Horry County’s flow-control ordinance, requiring disposal of county-generated waste at designated publicly operated facilities, did not violate the Dormant Commerce Clause or the Equal Protection Clause. Applying United Haulers, the court concluded that the ordinance treated private businesses alike, served legitimate public purposes, and imposed no unconstitutional burden on interstate commerce.
Topics
Practice areas
Questions Presented
- Whether Horry County's Flow Control Ordinance discriminated against interstate commerce in violation of the Dormant Commerce Clause.
- Whether the Flow Control Ordinance imposed burdens on interstate commerce that were clearly excessive in relation to its local benefits under Pike v. Bruce Church, Inc.
- Whether summary judgment was improper because genuine disputes of material fact existed concerning alleged discriminatory treatment under the Dormant Commerce Clause.
- Whether the Flow Control Ordinance violated the Equal Protection Clause by intentionally treating appellants differently from similarly situated businesses.
- Whether summary judgment was improper on the Equal Protection claim because material factual disputes remained regarding similarly situated businesses.
Holdings
- The ordinance did not discriminate against interstate commerce because it favored a clearly public waste-disposal facility while treating all private businesses alike, regardless of whether they were in-state or out-of-state.
- The ordinance survived Pike balancing because any arguable burden on interstate commerce did not exceed its substantial public benefits.
- Summary judgment was proper because appellants identified no genuine dispute of material fact showing discriminatory enforcement or disparate treatment of private businesses.
- The ordinance did not violate the Equal Protection Clause because appellants failed to show that they were intentionally treated differently from similarly situated companies.
Key quotations
“Trash disposal is a traditional function of local government, so county waste-management ordinances can permissibly distinguish between private businesses and those controlled by states, counties, and municipalities.” (737 F.3d at 53)
“Therefore, the Flow Control Ordinance does not discriminate against interstate commerce.” (737 F.3d at 54)
“Summary judgment is therefore appropriate on appellants’ Equal Protection Clause claim.” (737 F.3d at 59)
Factual background
Horry County enacted a Flow Control Ordinance requiring acceptable waste generated in the county to be disposed of at landfills operated by or designated by the publicly controlled Horry County Solid Waste Authority. Sandlands operated a private construction-and-demolition waste landfill in neighboring Marion County and lost business because haulers could no longer take Horry County waste there; Express Disposal Service transported waste to that landfill and received citations for violating the ordinance. The ordinance excluded hazardous and other unacceptable waste, allowed certain public-landfill arrangements, and supported county waste-management, recycling, environmental, and public-safety programs through tipping-fee revenue.
Procedural history
Appellants filed an action for declaratory judgment, damages, and injunctive relief in South Carolina state court. Horry County removed the action to the United States District Court for the District of South Carolina, which granted defendants summary judgment on all causes of action. The district court also certified a state-law preemption question to the South Carolina Supreme Court, which determined that the ordinance was not preempted. The Fourth Circuit affirmed the judgment.