Ass Vs Oneida-Herkimer Solid Waste Mg Case Study

III. THE STATE OF EASTLAND’S LAW PROHIBITING OUT OF STATE PROVIDERS FROM PARTICIPATING IN THE DISPOSAL OF FETAL TISSUES IN AREAS SERVED BY STATE-RUN FACILITIES DOES NOT DISCRIMINATE AGAINST INTERSTATE COMMERCE BECAUSE THE STATE IS SIMPLY RELYING ON ITS POLICE POWERS TO CARRY OUT ITS TRADITIONAL FUNCTION OF WASTE DISPOSAL, WHILE TREATING BOTH IN-STATE AND OUT-OF-STATERS ALIKE

A regulation is discriminatory when it institutes a differential treatment of in-state and out-of-state economic interests that benefits the former and burdens the latter. United Haulers Ass'n v. Oneida-Herkimer Solid Waste Mgmt. Auth., 550 U.S. 330, 334 (2007). However, if a regulation benefits strictly a public facility, while treating all private companies exactly

Moreover, Eastland’s law is not discriminatory because it treats both private in-state providers and out-of-staters alike. Eastland’s only goal is to implement measures that will uphold human dignity and ensure the safe disposal of waste to avoid health hazards. R at 3. Eastland precludes private providers access to the limited cities in order to effectively and closely monitor the disposal of the abortion waste in those areas. Id. Because of the vast population of people living in these cities, any mismanagement of the waste could lead to catastrophic results. Further, without a holistic system in place in these cities, the system could be abused, manipulated, and exploited. But by running the only facilities in these cities, the state can effectively manage the system for the benefit of all. Thus, Eastland’s law prohibiting all private providers access to the cities is not discriminatory against interstate commerce because Eastland is merely acting lawfully within its police powers and the regulation applies to both in-state and out-of-state private service providers, without any preferential