New York, Petitioner v. United States et al. País/Territorio Estados Unidos de América Tipo de la corte Nacional - corte superior Fecha Jun 19, 1992 Fuente UNEP, InforMEA Nombre del tribunal Supreme Court of the United States Sede de la corte Washington D.C. Juez OConnorRehnquistScaliaKennedySouterThomasWhiteBlackmunStevens Número de referencia 488 U.S. 1041 (1992) Idioma Inglés Materia Desechos y sustancias peligrosas Palabra clave Derecho constitutional Residuos radiactivos Resumen This case dealt with the boundary between federal and state power in connection with radioactive waste. In 1985, Congress enacted the Low Level Radioactive Waste Policy Amendments Act, which imposed upon States the obligation to provide for the disposal of waste generated within their borders. This was a reaction to a looming shortage of disposal sites for low level radioactive waste in 31 States. The Act contained three "incentives" to States to comply with that obligation. The first set of incentives authorized States with disposal sites to impose a surcharge on radioactive waste received from other States. The second set of incentives authorized sited States to deny access to waste generated in States that did not meet federal deadlines. The third incentive provided that a State that failed to provide for the disposal of all internally generated waste had to take title to and possession of the waste and become liable for all damages suffered by the generator or owner as a result of the State’s failure to promptly take possession. The petitioners filed this suit against the United States, arguing that the three incentives provisions were inconsistent with the Tenth Amendment to the Constitution. This declared that "powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States". The Supreme Court emphasized that in ascertaining whether any of the challenged provisions overstepped the boundary between federal and state power, the Court had to determine whether it was authorized by the affirmative grants to Congress contained in Article I’s Commerce and Spending Clauses or whether it invaded the province of state sovereignty reserved by the Tenth Amendment. In conclusion, it held that the Act’s monetary incentives and access incentives provisions were consistent with the Constitution’s allocation of power between the Federal and State Governments, but the take title provision was not. Texto completo 91-543.ZO.html