Marrow's Bag Ban: City Versus State
The city of Marrow (population 90,000) passes an ordinance banning stores from giving out single-use plastic bags, effective in January. Two years earlier, the state legislature had enacted a law stating that waste-reduction standards shall be set exclusively by the state Department of Environment. The state itself has no bag rule.
A retailers' association sues, arguing the city exceeded its authority. The city replies that clearing bags from its storm drains costs about $300,000 a year, and that its charter allows the council to act for the health, safety, and welfare of residents.
The state's highest court has already ruled, in a case about lawn chemicals, that the word exclusively in the same statute means what it says. The trial court must decide before the January start date, and the city has already printed signs for store windows.
1. Identify the principle at issue and explain who holds the stronger legal position. Say what a city charter can and cannot do.
Read the worked answer
The issue is the division of power between a state and its local governments. Under U.S. law, cities are created by state law and exercise only the authority the state gives them. A city charter is itself granted by the state, so it cannot override a later state statute on the same subject; the charter's health-and-welfare language describes the city's purpose, not an independent source of power.
The retailers have the stronger legal position. The statute says exclusively, and the state's highest court has already interpreted that exact word in the same law, which makes the precedent directly controlling. It does not matter that the state has no bag rule of its own: a state can occupy a field without filling every part of it.
The city's $300,000 drain-clearing figure is a real policy problem but not a legal authority. Note that preemption is about who decides, not about whether bags are harmful.
2. Why is this not a federalism case? Explain the difference between state-federal disputes and state-city disputes, and why the distinction matters for the city's strategy.
Read the worked answer
Federalism divides power between the national government and the states. The Constitution gives the national government enumerated powers and reserves the rest to the states; each level has independent constitutional standing, so a dispute turns on whether Congress acted within a valid constitutional power.
Cities have no such independent standing. They are legal creations of the state, which can expand, shrink, or abolish their powers. That means Marrow's argument is not a constitutional claim about local self-government; it is a statutory question about whether the legislature delegated bag regulation to cities, and the answer is that it did not.
This matters strategically. A federal lawsuit is a poor route, because no federal constitutional right is at stake. The city's realistic routes are state-level: a waiver from the state agency, an amendment in the legislature, or regulating only city property. It also matters for how the case is taught: calling any local-state conflict federalism blurs which level actually holds the power.
3. Describe two lawful actions - one by the city, one by the state - that could change the outcome without a court victory, and give the strongest argument against the city's side.
Read the worked answer
City action: petition the state Department of Environment for a variance or a local pilot authority under the existing statute. Because the state has no bag rule, the agency could delegate authority without contradicting its own standards. The city can also act where it is the property owner - city buildings, parks, and vendor contracts - and can pass a resolution asking its legislators to amend the law.
State action: the legislature can amend the statute to allow local standards stricter than a state floor, or the agency can adopt a statewide rule, which would make the preemption question irrelevant.
The strongest argument against the city is not about bags but about uniformity: a retailer with shops in thirty cities faces thirty rules, and the legislature used exclusively for exactly that reason. That is a legitimate purpose, which is why a court is unlikely to second-guess it. The city's best response is to show that its rule is compatible with a state floor, not to claim independent authority it does not have.