New York v. United States

Majority reasoning

The majority, per Justice O'Connor, held that while Congress may encourage state regulation through spending conditions or by offering a choice between state regulation and federal preemption, it may not directly command states to enact or administer a regulatory program because that would "commandeer" state legislative processes. The take title provision offered states only a choice between two options Congress could not impose individually—forced transfer of waste ownership or a direct command to regulate—and a choice between two unconstitutional options is no choice at all. The Court reasoned that this preserves political accountability: when Congress regulates directly, federal officials bear responsibility for unpopular outcomes, but when Congress forces states to regulate, state officials wrongly absorb the political blame for federally mandated policy. The Court rejected the argument that New York's political consent to the legislation could ratify an unconstitutional expansion of congressional power, drawing an analogy to separation-of-powers cases where a branch's consent to encroachment does not cure the constitutional violation. The majority found the take title provision severable from the rest of the Act, leaving the other two incentive schemes intact.

Dissent reasoning

Justice White, joined by Justices Blackmun and Stevens, dissented from the invalidation of the take title provision, arguing the majority mischaracterized the statute by ignoring that it was the product of a negotiated interstate compromise among sited and unsited states, with Congress acting as an arbiter rather than an imposer. White argued New York's active participation in drafting the legislation and its acceptance of benefits under the Act should estop it from challenging the take title provision, and that the provision was a reasonable ultimate sanction needed to enforce a hard-fought bargain. He contended the majority's "commandeering" rule rested on dicta from Hodel and FERC v. Mississippi that did not actually support a flat prohibition, and that the proper test from Garcia should ask whether the political process adequately protected the states—which it did here, since New York's own representatives helped write the law. Justice Stevens separately dissented, arguing the Constitution has never prohibited Congress from directly commanding state governments, noting that Congress already directs states in many areas like elections and prisons, and that if courts can order states to take specific actions in interstate disputes, Congress must have similar authority.