The U.S. Supreme Court case Oregon Waste Systems, Inc., et al. v. Department of Environmental Quality of the State of Oregon et al., 1993, revolved around a dispute over an environmental surcharge imposed by the state on out-of-state waste disposal companies. The court ruled that this surcharge violated the Commerce Clause in the Constitution because it discriminated against interstate commerce by imposing higher fees on out-of-state waste than in-state waste without any justification related to actual costs or benefits associated with disposing such wastes within its borders. This decision was based on principles established in previous cases which held that states cannot use their regulatory power to favor local economic interests over those from other states unless there is a legitimate public interest at stake and no non-discriminatory alternatives are available.

In the dissenting opinion for Oregon Waste Systems, Inc. v. Department of Environmental Quality of the State of Oregon, Justice Scalia argued that the majority's decision was inconsistent with previous rulings on interstate commerce and taxation. He contended that states should be allowed to impose higher fees on out-of-state waste as a way to compensate for potential environmental risks associated with its disposal. According to him, this did not violate the Commerce Clause because it wasn't protectionist or discriminatory in nature; rather it was an attempt by a state to manage its own resources responsibly while also protecting itself from possible harm caused by other states' activities. Furthermore, he believed that if such surcharges were deemed unconstitutional then all forms of differential pricing based on residency could potentially be challenged under similar grounds which would significantly limit states' rights and powers.