Westlaw Journal
ENVIRONMENTAL
Litigation News and Analysis • Legislation • Regulation • Expert Commentary
Solid Waste
VOLUME 32, ISSUE 6 / OCTOBER 12, 2011
9th Circuit Revives Challenge
To Solid-Waste Initiative
The 9th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals has reinstated a lawsuit challenging
the constitutionality of a California county regulation that restricts how much
solid waste can be brought to its landfills from other areas.
Potrero Hills Landfill Inc. et al. v. County of Solano, No. 10-15229, 2011 WL 4068943
(9th Cir. Sept. 13, 2011).
The three-judge panel held that the lower court erred when it dismissed the case on
Younger abstention grounds. The Younger abstention doctrine bars federal courts
from interfering in a case that “implicate important state interests.” Younger v. Harris,
401 U.S. 37 (1971).
The U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of California said the case would interfere with pending state court proceedings involving the county regulation.
But the appeals panel said the state court proceedings were brought by private interest groups and would not implicate the state’s interest in protecting its vital interests.
That is one of the criteria for a federal court to dismiss a case on Younger abstention
grounds (see box on P. 2).
The panel said that on remand, the District Court
could consider whether the Pullman abstention
doctrine applied to the case. Under that doctrine,
a federal court may decline jurisdiction if, among
other criteria, the state law issue is uncertain. R.R.
Comm’n of Tex. v. Pullman Co., 312 U.S. 496 (1941).
Plaintiffs’ attorney James Slaughter of Beveridge
& Diamond said the 9th Circuit’s decision was
important because it clarified and narrowed the
Younger abstention doctrine.
The city’s attorney Jimmy Slaughter
of Beveridge & Diamond
He said the plaintiffs will argue on remand that
the county regulation is a “per se” violation of the
U.S. Constitution’s commerce clause and that
there is no uncertainty of the regulation’s terms
under state law. Therefore, he said, the District
Court should exercise jurisdiction.
WESTLAW JOURNAL ENVIRONMENTAL
Younger abstention
The U.S. Supreme Court laid out a three-part test for determining when to
apply Younger v. Harris, 401 U.S. 37 (1971), to civil proceedings. Abstention is
required so long as the state proceedings:
• Are ongoing.
• Implicate important state interests.
• Provide an adequate opportunity to raise federal questions.
The Potrero Hills Landfill, Waste Connections Inc. and others filed the suit in 2009,
challenging as unconstitutional a 1984 Solano County law called Measure E that imposed an annual cap of 95,000 tons on the amount of solid waste that can enter the
county from other jurisdictions for landfill disposal.
The county never enforced Measure E, and in 1992 county officials concluded that the
measure was unconstitutional under U.S. Supreme Court precedent, the complaint said.
The Legislative Counsel of California reached the same conclusion that year, finding
that the measure is “protectionist and impermissibly discriminatory against interstate commerce,” the lawsuit said.
The measure does not limit the amount of in-county waste at Solano County landfills,
the suit said.
The intent and effect of Measure E are to discriminate against solid waste generated from neighboring counties and cities in California’s San Francisco Bay Area and
Sacramento River delta regions, as well from neighboring states, according to the suit.
The plaintiffs sought a judgment declaring Measure E unlawful, arbitrary, unreasonable and in violation of their constitutional rights. They also sought a permanent
injunction barring the county from enforcing or implementing the ban.
The District Court dismissed the case, noting there was an ongoing state court lawsuit
brought by environmental groups seeking injunctive relief to enforce the initiative.
The plaintiffs appealed to the 9th Circuit, which reversed and remanded.
The panel said a private litigant’s interest in seeing Measure E enforced does not
implicate important state interests.
Private litigants lack executive authority to enforce state laws, whether enacted by
initiative or by the Legislature, the 9th Circuit said.
©2011 Thomson Reuters. This publication
was created to provide you with accurate
and authoritative information concerning the
subject matter covered, however it may not
necessarily have been prepared by persons
licensed to practice law in a particular jurisdiction. The publisher is not engaged in
rendering legal or other professional advice,
and this publication is not a substitute for
the advice of an attorney. If you require legal
or other expert advice, you should seek the
services of a competent attorney or other
professional. For subscription information,
please visit www.West.Thomson.com.
2
Additionally Solano County opposed abstention and wanted federal adjudication of
the plaintiffs’ claim, the panel said.
The 9th Circuit sent the case back to the District Court to consider whether to decline
jurisdiction under the Pullman abstention doctrine.
According to Slaughter, under the Pullman doctrine, a court may defer hearing a federal claim if the case involves a sensitive policy issue, the federal constitutional issue
can be avoided if a state law would terminate the case or the state law is uncertain.
©2011 Thomson Reuters