Can Congress compel states to implement federal regulatory programs or "take title" to radioactive waste without violating the Tenth Amendment and principles of federalism?

The Low-Level Radioactive Waste Policy Amendments Act of 1985 aimed to address the disposal of low-level radioactive waste in the United States. It mandated states to either join regional compacts for waste disposal or develop their own disposal sites. The Act included three types of incentives: monetary, access, and a 'take title' provision. Under the 'take title' provision, states failing to provide for waste disposal by a specified deadline were required to take ownership of and assume liability for the waste.

New York State initially took steps to comply with the Act but later challenged its constitutionality, particularly the 'take title' provision. This led to a legal dispute between New York State and the federal government over the Act's validity and implementation. The case centered on the constitutional implications of the federal government compelling state action in waste management through the Act's provisions.

New York State and two counties (Allegany and Cortland) filed a lawsuit against the United States in 1990. The plaintiffs sought a declaratory judgment that the Act violated several constitutional provisions. The District Court dismissed the complaint. The plaintiffs appealed this decision to the Court of Appeals, which affirmed the District Court's ruling. Following this, the plaintiffs petitioned for and were granted certiorari by the Supreme Court, bringing the case before the highest court for review.

(O'Connor, J.)

No. Congress cannot compel states to implement federal regulatory programs or "take title" to radioactive waste without violating the Tenth Amendment and principles of federalism. The Constitution does not grant Congress the authority to mandate state legislatures to enact specific legislation or enforce federal regulatory schemes. The 'take title' provision of the Act presents states with an unconstitutional choice: either regulate according to federal directives or assume ownership of radioactive waste. This provision exceeds congressional authority under the Commerce Clause and violates the Tenth Amendment's reservation of powers to the states. The federal government cannot commandeer state legislative processes or coerce states into adopting federal policies. Such actions undermine the dual sovereignty structure of American federalism, where both federal and state governments exercise independent authority within their respective spheres. The Tenth Amendment explicitly reserves to the states powers not delegated to the federal government, preserving state sovereignty and preventing federal overreach. While Congress may incentivize state action through its spending power or preempt state laws in areas of federal jurisdiction, it cannot directly compel state legislative or regulatory action. This decision reinforces the principle that the federal government must respect state autonomy and cannot treat states as mere administrative agencies of federal will. The Constitution establishes a system of dual sovereignty that requires maintaining a balance between federal and state power, ensuring that states retain meaningful control over their internal affairs and legislative processes.

Concurrence/Dissent (White, J.) The Court has mischaracterized the essential inquiry and undervalued the effect the seriousness of the public policy problem should have on the constitutionality of the take title provision. This legislation is a product of cooperative federalism. The Court's decision will hinder Congress's ability to address pressing national problems. The take title provision should be viewed as a valid exercise of Congress's power to address important public policy issues through cooperative federalism.

Concurrence/Dissent (Stevens, J.) There is no constitutional limitation preventing Congress from issuing commands to state governments. The Constitution enhanced, rather than diminished, the power of the Federal Government. The Tenth Amendment does not impose limits on Congress's exercise of its Article I powers. The Court's interpretation unduly restricts Congress's ability to address national issues through direct regulation of state activities.