In the 1945 case New York et al. v. United States, the Supreme Court ruled that Congress had overstepped its constitutional powers by passing a law which required states to take title to any radioactive waste within their borders if they did not comply with federal regulations on disposal of such waste. The court held that while Congress has broad power under the Constitution's Commerce Clause to regulate interstate commerce, it cannot compel state governments to enforce federal regulatory programs against their will. This decision was based on principles of dual sovereignty and affirmed limits on congressional authority under the Tenth Amendment, which reserves for states all powers not specifically granted to the federal government in other parts of Constitution.

In the dissenting opinion for New York et al. v. United States, Justice Robert H. Jackson disagreed with the majority's ruling that Congress had overstepped its constitutional authority by enacting a law requiring states to take title to any low-level radioactive waste or pay penalties if they did not do so. He argued that this provision was a valid exercise of Congressional power under the Commerce Clause and necessary in order to address an important national problem - managing nuclear waste disposal safely and efficiently across state lines. Furthermore, he contended that it did not violate principles of federalism because it merely required states to assume responsibility for their own waste rather than imposing on them obligations related to other states' wastes.