New York v. United States et al.
The Court permitted the federal government to induce shifts in state waste policy through other means.
505 U.S. 144 · No. 91-543 · 1991 term · Rehnquist Court
Decided Jun 19, 1992 · argued Mar 30, 1992
Federalism · National supremacy: pollution, air or water
Struck down an act of Congress
Majority opinion: Sandra O'Connor
The voteMajorityDissent
6–36 in the majority, 3 in dissent
3 dissents (6–3)
Affirmed and reversed (or vacated) in part. New York won.
What this ruling means
Affirmed in part and reversed in part: the Supreme Court upheld part of the decision of the U.S. Court of Appeals, Second Circuit and overturned or set aside the rest.
New York was the petitioner, the side that asked the Supreme Court to review the case. “Won” means the Court gave that side the result it asked for.
From the Supreme Court Database. A justice who agreed with the result but not the reasoning counts in the majority.
Summary
The opening of the case’s Wikipedia article: what the case was about and what the Court held.
New York v. United States, 505 U.S. 144 (1992), was a decision of the United States Supreme Court. Justice Sandra Day O'Connor, writing for the majority, found that the federal government may not require states to “take title” to radioactive waste through the "Take Title" provision of the Low-Level Radioactive Waste Policy Amendments Act, which the Court found to exceed Congress's power under the Commerce Clause. The Court permitted the federal government to induce shifts in state waste policy through other means.
Data notes
The text is Wikipedia’s (CC BY-SA 4.0), matched to the case by its citation, docket number or name and year, and is not checked against the opinion. The site keeps the article’s opening section, ending on its last full sentence. The one-sentence summary under the title is the Decisions list’s: Wikipedia’s own ruling sentence, or, tagged “AI-written”, one Claude wrote from this opening.
How the justices voted
Each justice who took part, placed by their Martin–Quinn ideology score for the 1991 term. Filled: the 6 in the majority. Hollow: the 3 in dissent. Colour is the party of the president who appointed them.
Majority(6)
Sandra O'ConnorWrote the majority opinion
David SouterJoined the majority
Anthony KennedyJoined the majority
William RehnquistJoined the majority
Antonin ScaliaJoined the majority
Clarence ThomasJoined the majority
Dissent(3)
John StevensWrote a dissent
Byron WhiteWrote a dissent
Harry BlackmunJoined a dissent
Data notes
Each justice’s vote and what they wrote are from the justice-centered file of the Supreme Court Database. “Wrote a concurrence” means the justice sided with the majority and wrote separately; a justice who dissented in part is counted on the side they took overall. A justice who wrote nothing is listed as joining their side.
Positions are each justice’s Martin–Quinn score for the case’s term, the same scores as the Ideology page: negative is more liberal, positive more conservative. A score sums up a justice’s votes across the whole term, so it says where they usually sit, not why they voted as they did here. The median line is the Court’s median justice that term.
The parties
Who brought the case to the Court, who answered it, and how it got there.
- Petitioner
- New YorkState (New York)
- Respondent
- United States et al.United States
- Reached the Court by
- Certiorari (the Court chose to hear it)
Data notes
The names are the two sides of the case’s title. The description under each is the Supreme Court Database’s category for that party, in its own wording. The petitioner is the side that asked the Supreme Court to review the decision below. “Why it was taken” appears only when the majority opinion says lower courts disagreed or were unsure about the question; reasons that would fit any case (“to resolve the question presented”, “an important question”) are left out.
The law at issue
The law the Court was asked to apply, and the kind of power it used to decide.
- Provision
- Article I, Section 8, Paragraph 3 (interstate commerce clause)
- Kind of law
- Constitution
- Decided by
- Judicial review (national level)
- Struck down
- An act of Congress, as unconstitutional
Data notes
The Supreme Court Database codes the main constitutional provision, statute or court rule each case turned on, and the basis of the decision: judicial review of a federal or state law, interpreting a statute, supervising the lower courts, and so on. A case can rest on more than one. “Overruled” counts only where the majority opinion says so.
Timeline
What happened at the Court and how the case got there, newest first.
- Jun 19, 1992DecidedDecided · Decided 6–3: affirmed and reversed (or vacated) in part. New York won.
- Mar 30, 1992ArguedArgued · Oral argument before the Court.
- Not datedTaken upTaken up · The Supreme Court agreed to hear the case (certiorari).
- Not datedCourt belowCourt below · Decided by the U.S. Court of Appeals, Second Circuit: affirmed.
- Not datedBeganBegan · The case began in the New York Northern U.S. District Court.
Data notes
From the Supreme Court Database: the court the case began in, the court whose decision the Supreme Court reviewed and what that court did, how the case came to the Court, and the dates of argument and decision. The database does not date the steps in the lower courts. Court names are the database’s.
Other decisions on the same issue
4 other argued cases since 1946 on national supremacy: pollution, air or water, newest first.
- Pennsylvania v. Union Gas Co.491 U.S. 1Jun 15, 1989 · 491 U.S. 1Federalism5–45–4 band
- Environmental Protection Agency et al. v. California ex rel. State Water Resources Control Board et al.426 U.S. 200Jun 7, 1976 · 426 U.S. 200Federalism7–27–2 band
- Hancock, Attorney General of Kentucky v. Train, Administrator, Environmental Protection Agency, et al.426 U.S. 167Jun 7, 1976 · 426 U.S. 167Federalism7–27–2 band
- Huron Portland Cement Co. v. City of Detroit et al.362 U.S. 440Apr 25, 1960 · 362 U.S. 440Federalism7–27–2 band
Data notes
Every other orally argued case with a clear vote, from the 1946 term on, that the Supreme Court Database files under the same issue as this one. The database gives each case one issue from a list of about 270 (abortion, search and seizure of vehicles, the death penalty, and so on), whatever law it turned on.
Official record
Read the full opinion on Justia, the argument audio on Oyez and Wikipedia. Case data from the Supreme Court Database, Version 2026 Release 01, through the 2025 term.