
                         Roanoke Times
                 Copyright (c) 1995, Landmark Communications, Inc.

DATE: TUESDAY, April 5, 1994                   TAG: 9404050164
SECTION: NATIONAL/INT                    PAGE: A-1   EDITION: METRO 
SOURCE: Los Angeles Times
DATELINE: WASHINGTON                                LENGTH: Medium

JUSTICES DUMP OUT-OF-STATE-TRASH TAX

In a new setback for states trying to stem the flow of trash across their borders, the Supreme Court ruled Monday that government officials may not charge higher fees for dumping out-of-state garbage in their landfills.

The 7-2 decision strikes down an Oregon law that set a $2.25-per-ton disposal fee for out-of-state solid waste and a 85-cent fee for similar waste generated within Oregon.

The court's opinion strongly reaffirms its view that states may not discriminate against the interstate shipment of goods.

Doing so is the type of ``economic protectionism'' barred by the Constitution, the justices said.

Also Monday, the court announced it would rule on whether consumers can sue airlines under state laws for changing the terms of their frequent-flier programs.

Lawyers representing 4 million frequent fliers have sued American Airlines under an Illinois consumer fraud law, contending the carrier cannot unilaterally change its rules. They challenged Americans' new policy of limiting the number of seats available to holders of free tickets.

The garbage case reflects America's impressive ability to produce trash. In 1990, the nation generated 196 million tons of municipal solid waste, nearly 50 percent more than in 1975. By the end of this decade, the annual total will reach 222 million tons, according to the Environmental Protection Agency.

Two years ago, the justices struck down an Alabama law that set a $72-per-ton fee on shipments of hazardous waste crossing into the state.

Oregon lawyers justified their differing fees by arguing that the state's taxpayers subsidize the cost of recycling and the development of landfills, and therefore deserve lower fees for disposing of waste.

But Monday's ruling rejected that approach, too. ``The fact remains that the differential charge favors shippers of Oregon waste over their counterparts handling waste generated in other states,'' Justice Clarence Thomas wrote for the court. ``In making that geographic distinction, the surcharge patently discriminates against interstate commerce'' and is therefore unconstitutional, he said.

Dissenting were Chief Justice William Rehnquist and Harry Blackmun.

by CNB