In his second week on the job, President Donald Trump announced his nominee to fill the Supreme Court vacancy left by the death of Justice Antonin Scalia last year.
This may seem like “old news” to some given the intense media coverage, but
keep reading. While it is now common knowledge that Judge Neil Gorsuch is Trump’s
pick for the Supreme Court, ReMA offers a little more insight as to what this
nominee – if confirmed by the U.S. Senate – might mean for the recycling
industry.
Clearly,
any addition to the U.S. Supreme Court will have national implications as well
as state and local impacts that ReMA members may be interested in following. For
instance, as the Supreme Court hears more cases on state vs. federal authority
on environmental matters, the newest member of the Supreme Court could sway the
balance of power and administrative regulatory authority over matters impacting
recycling. So, just who is Neil Gorsuch and why should ReMA members care?
Being
careful so as to not rehash what has invariably been covered tirelessly by the
media since his nomination was announced, here is a short background of the man
who could be the next Supreme Court Justice. Neil Gorsuch was announced as
President Trump’s choice to replace Scalia during a televised event on January
31, 2017. Gorsuch was confirmed for the United States Court of Appeals for the
Tenth Circuit under President George W. Bush in 2006. Gorsuch has long been a
favorite of legal thinkers at conservative think tanks such as the Federalist
Society and the Heritage Foundation, though he has also been recognized as a
great legal mind by scholars across the political spectrum. He attended Harvard
Law with former President Obama, whose acting solicitor general gave Gorsuch a
robust endorsement saying he “brings a sense of fairness and decency to the
job.” Prior to rising to the bench himself, Gorsuch was a U.S. Supreme Court
clerk for Justices Byron White and Anthony Kennedy from 1993 to 1994.
As
for the Court’s impact on the recycling industry, it is generally accepted that
government authority and fundamental constitutional protections are likely to
be matters of keen interest to the business community. For instance, ISRI
members have challenged both state and federal statutes on grounds that they
violate constitutional protections against infringement on interstate commerce.
The legitimacy of federal regulations are often challenged on grounds that the
issuing agency exceeded its constitutional authority within the executive
branch by, in fact, legislating rules on business. And, more recently, the
validity of administrative warrantless searches of business records has come
under review in light of the protections afforded by the Fourth Amendment of
the Constitution.
Any
number of these protections could be either expanded or restricted as a result
of the ideology of whomever is appointed next to fill the seat of Scalia. Authors
of a recent legal analysis entitled "Searching for Scalia" concluded
that Gorsuch was the most likely of those on President Trump’s list of
potential nominees to be most like Scalia—who was known as an originalist,
textualist, and a conservative.[i]
However, as these authors note, measuring (or operationalizing) what made
Justice Scalia who he was as a jurist is no easy task.
ISRI
members may want to pay particular attention as it relates to the issue of
warrantless business record searches. Many of Gorsuch’s more prominent rulings
involve the Fourth Amendment indicating that his instincts may be similar to
Scalia. Last year, ReMA reported on a case before the Supreme Court known as City of Los Angeles v. Patel,[ii]
in which the court addressed the matter of whether police could inspect business
records without notice or warrant under the Fourth Amendment of the U.S.
Constitution.
In that case, Justice Sotomayor seemed to hint at the need for possibly
re-opening the precedent setting New York
v. Burger ruling that said “junkyard” operations are “closely regulated” so
police do not need a warrant to search business records.[iii]
The implications of this case on state metals theft laws could be far-reaching
– if it weren’t for the Burger ruling against “junkyards” which Justice Scalia
found no reason to revisit – so perhaps the chances of re-opening the Burger
case per Sotomayor’s comments might be strengthened if Scalia’s replacement
were to take a different approach.
The
industry may find interest in the fact that there are various examples in which
Judge Gorsuch is not a carbon copy of Justice Scalia and may give the industry
reason to be optimistic. For instance, one area of the law where the views of
Gorsuch and Scalia differ concern that of federal agency deference. Less than
six months ago, Gorsuch called for the end of Chevron deference, named after the precedent-setting case of Chevron v. NRDC.[iv]
Gorsuch has been a stern critic of this idea that, where a federal agency is
enforcing an ambiguous statute, courts should defer to how the agency
understands the statute even if the courts read it differently. This deference
has evolved into a legal standard that makes it extremely difficult to
challenge a federal rulemaking.
If
Gorsuch is confirmed, his views on agency deference could be very important if
the court rules on the legality of one or more of the several federal
rulemakings that are currently under challenge. If he were to form part of a
majority to scale back this principle, it would be a major sea change in the
relationship between the executive branch and the courts, and one that would
likely impose significant new constraints on the scope of federal regulatory
authority on all topics -- from immigration and criminal law enforcement to
environmental protection, consumer product safety, and labor laws. This could
play to the advantage of ReMA members, for instance, who have concerns with the
new overtime rules promulgated at the end of last year under the Fair Labor
Standards Act.
The
business community may also find that this nomination could also have direct
impacts on daily operations when it comes down to taxes. ReMA members who
remotely sell or broker materials across state lines in which they have no
physical operations or nexus should be following current events involving sales
taxes. (See related article in this
edition of SPAN). State and local governments are aggressively seeking new
ways to get their hands on sales taxes from buyers outside their jurisdictions.
While just one case is too few to judge any Supreme Court nominee, there is a
case that sheds light on how Gorsuch could cause a seismic shift in tax law.
Last year Gorsuch strongly implied that given the opportunity, the U.S. Supreme
Court should overrule Quill Corp. v.
North Dakota (1992). In Quill, the Supreme Court held that states cannot
require retailers with no in-state physical presence to collect sales taxes.
States and groups such as the National Conference of State Legislatures are
eagerly planning for the next earliest opportunity to challenge and overturn Quill, going so far as to enact
legislation for the specific purpose of creating the “case and controversy”
needed for a court challenge.
So
what is next? Now that we know who the
nominee is, two questions remain: Will the Senate Democrats filibuster Gorsuch,
as many have promised to do? If they do, will Senate Republicans exercise the
“nuclear option,” meaning only a simple majority of senators will be needed to
confirm Gorsuch’s nomination? ReMA will be following developments and will
report on factors of relevance to the industry.
Stay
tuned…
[1] Jeremy Kidd, Riddhi Sohan Dasgupta,
Ryan Walters & James Phillips, “Searching for Justice Scalia: Measuring the
‘Scalia-Ness’ of the Next Potential Member of the U.S. Supreme Court,” (January
27, 2017), Available at SSRN: https://ssrn.com/abstract=2874794.
[1] Los
Angeles v. Patel, 576 U.S. ____ (2015).
In oral arguments on June 13, 2015, Justices Kennedy, Alito, Scalia and
Roberts seemed to accept the “closely-regulated” rule as applied in this case
which leaves significant question as to whether the Court has any desire or
intent to narrow the Burger exception.
[1] See
ISRI Leadership Update newsletter, (June 23, 2015). It is plausible that the
Supreme Court could re-open the Burger case following its ruling in June 2016
that the Fourth Amendment does require a warrant for the inspection of hotel
records. In that ruling, Justice
Sotomayor indicated she was reluctant to embrace the “closely regulated”
exception to the Fourth Amendment warrant requirement and Justices Kennedy,
Ginsburg, Breyer, and Kagan agreed.
Justice Scalia wrote the dissenting opinion in which Justices Roberts,
Thomas, and Alito, Jr. joined.
[1]
In Chevron v. NRDC, 46 U.S. 837
(1984), the Supreme Court held that courts should defer to reasonable agency
interpretations of ambiguous statutes.
[i]
Jeremy Kidd, Riddhi Sohan Dasgupta, Ryan Walters & James Phillips,
“Searching for Justice Scalia: Measuring the ‘Scalia-Ness’ of the Next
Potential Member of the U.S. Supreme Court,” (January 27, 2017), Available at
SSRN: https://ssrn.com/abstract=2874794.
[ii]Los Angeles v. Patel, 576 U.S. ____
(2015). In oral arguments on June 13,
2015, Justices Kennedy, Alito, Scalia and Roberts seemed to accept the
“closely-regulated” rule as applied in this case which leaves significant
question as to whether the Court has any desire or intent to narrow the Burger
exception.
[iii]See ReMA Leadership Update
newsletter, (June 23, 2015). It is plausible that the Supreme Court could
re-open the Burger case following its ruling in June 2016 that the Fourth
Amendment does require a warrant for the inspection of hotel records. In that ruling, Justice Sotomayor indicated
she was reluctant to embrace the “closely regulated” exception to the Fourth
Amendment warrant requirement and Justices Kennedy, Ginsburg, Breyer, and Kagan
agreed. Justice Scalia wrote the
dissenting opinion in which Justices Roberts, Thomas, and Alito, Jr. joined.
[iv]
In Chevron v. NRDC, 46 U.S. 837
(1984), the Supreme Court held that courts should defer to reasonable agency
interpretations of ambiguous statutes.
SPAN Main