—striking down, as violative of Commerce Clause, local ordinance requiring town transfer station to process all solid waste processed within town

A discriminatory law "is valid only if the state `can demonstrate, under rigorous scrutiny, that it has no other means to advance a legitimate local interest.'"

The rationale of the dormant Commerce Clause with respect to discriminatory laws is to prohibit local economic protectionism.

—this Court struck down under the Commerce Clause a flow control ordinance that forced haulers to deliver waste to a particular private processing facility.

"The Commerce Clause presumes a national market free from local legislation that discriminates in favor of local interests."

"The central rationale for the rule against discrimination is to prohibit state or municipal laws whose object is local economic protectionism, laws that would excite those jealousies and retaliatory measures the Constitution was designed to prevent."

—"or because it" imposes a burden on interstate commerce that is `clearly excessive in relation to the putative local benefits

The ordinance is no less discriminatory because in-state or in-town processors are also covered by the prohibition.

I, § 8, cl. 3. "We have interpreted the Commerce Clause to invalidate local laws that impose commercial barriers or discriminate against an article of commerce by reason of its origin or destination out of State."

—after all, made a very similar argument to the effect that the waste processing facility deemed in that case to have been given a monopoly over local waste processing in derogation of the Commerce Clause was in actuality a municipal facility notwithstanding the fact that technically it was private.

[CITATION] UNITED HAULERS ASSN., INC. v. ONEIDA-HERKIMERSOLID WASTE MANAGEMENT AUTHORITY