In the case of Chemical Waste Management, Inc. v. Guy Hunt, Governor of Alabama et al., 1991, the U.S Supreme Court ruled on a dispute regarding an Alabama law that imposed higher fees for hazardous waste disposal on out-of-state waste than in-state waste. The plaintiff, Chemical Waste Management (CWM), argued that this was discriminatory and violated the Commerce Clause of the Constitution which prohibits states from passing legislation that improperly burdens or discriminates against interstate commerce. The state defended its position by arguing it had a legitimate interest in limiting hazardous wastes within its borders due to environmental concerns and health risks associated with such materials. The court sided with CWM stating that while states have valid interests in protecting their environment and public health, they cannot use these concerns as justifications for discriminating against interstate commerce unless there is no other means to advance those interests without burdening interstate trade. Therefore, Alabama's differential fee structure was deemed unconstitutional because it placed an unfair burden on out-of-state businesses involved in disposing hazardous wastes.

In the dissenting opinion for Chemical Waste Management, Inc. v. Guy Hunt, Governor of Alabama et al., Justice Scalia disagreed with the majority's interpretation of the Commerce Clause and its application to this case. He argued that states should have more authority in regulating waste disposal within their borders without interference from federal law or other states' interests. According to him, a state has every right to protect itself against potential harm caused by hazardous waste generated elsewhere and shipped into it for disposal purposes - even if such protectionist measures may impact interstate commerce negatively. He also criticized the Court's reliance on legislative history rather than clear statutory text when interpreting Congress' intent behind relevant laws.