MSRC Adjunct Professor Mike Cahill, of the Long Island Law firm Germano & Cahill, recently argued a case before the U.S. Supreme-Court. The case, United Haulers Association v. Oneida-Herkimer Solid Waste Management Authority (05-1345), considers the constitutionality of municipal flow-control ordinances regulating the processing and disposal of waste. The issue is whether waste haulers should be able to seek the cheapest venue for disposal or be required to use municipal facilities such as waste-to-energy plants or landfills. Oral arguments took place the morning of January 8, 2007, and the court’s final ruling could occur in May.
Cahill argued on behalf of the Solid Waste Management Authority’s right to mandate that haulers bring county municipal waste, green waste and recyclables to one of eight public facilities built to handle different components of the waste stream. Oneida-Herkimer’s system stresses recycling and is funded by a fee for non-recyclable waste. Rccyclables arc accepted at no charge. This fee supports a variety of public programs, including those for household hazardous-waste, electronics recycling, and a waste audit for local industry. Because the charge on non-recyclable waste is more expensive than the fees charged by out-of-state landfills, lawyers for the haulers argued that the Authority has violated the commerce clause by not allowing out-of-state disposal facilities to compete for 1~1 garbage. Cahi ll, on the other hand. argued that the county is not affecting interstate commerce because this case involves a public facility and does not give an unfair advantage to local private businesses. Cahill further argued that, with this ordinance, the Waste Authority plans for and manages the counties’ waste in a more comprehensive and environmentally friendly way. During his appearance before the court Cahill said, “If the people who collect the waste could drive it away to anywhere they please, the plan is no plan; the plan is just a suggestion.”
The outcome of this case stretches far beyond the issue of garbage. It could set a nationwide precedent on the extent that local governments can designate which services they alone provide, making it unconstitutional for municipalities to restrict out-of-state entities from providing those same services or utilities. Justice Breyer questioned whether the haulers’ view would place government monopolies such as public utilities for gas and electric service in danger of being declared unconstitutional.
“It was quite an experience,” explained Cahill, “The Justices come at you pretty fast and furious. I got two sentences out of my mouth before Justice Alito broke in with ‘What about hamburgers? What if the government wanted to sell hamburgers? Can they do that?” After that it was one question after another, but I think we ended up O.K.”
Cahill focuses on environmental and government contracts law. He graduated law school from DePaul University, J.D., 1978 and attended Harvard University. JFK School of Government, State and Local Program in 1988. Cahill also served as the president of Islip’s Resource Recovery Agency from 1988-1991.
“It is a significant honor for a lawyer to be able to present a case to the Supreme Court. It is great that we have a lawyer of Mike Cahill’s caliber teaching and involving himself in research and activities in our program at Stony Brook University,” said MSRC Associate Dean Larry Swanson. At MSRC, Cahill has taught the popular undergraduate and graduate Environmental Law courses (MAR 536/CEY 503) for the past 3 years and participated in many research initiatives at the Center. In particular, he worked with the Waste Reduction and Management Institute to examine municipal solid waste and recycling trends on Long Island. Cahill also sits on the Evan R. Liblit Memorial Scholarship Steering Committee, and entertained the crowds as the keynote speaker during the 2004 Scholarship award breakfast.
