This case dealt with the treatment of in state and out of state wastes. The state of Alabama passed an Act imposing a fee on hazardous wastes disposed of at in state commercial facilities, and an additional fee on hazardous wastes generated outside, but disposed of inside, the State. Petitioner Chemical Waste Management, Inc., operated a commercial hazardous waste land disposal facility in Alabama, that received both in state and out of state wastes. The petitioner filed suit seeking to enjoin the Act’s enforcement. The Supreme Court held that Alabama’s differential treatment of out of state waste violated the Commerce Clause. No State could attempt to isolate itself from a problem common to the several States by raising barriers to the free flow of interstate commerce. According to the Court, Alabama had not met its burden of showing the unavailability of nondiscriminatory alternatives adequate to preserve the local interests at stake. Alabama’s concern about the volume of waste entering the facility could have been alleviated by less discriminatory means - such as applying an additional fee on all hazardous waste disposed of within Alabama - which would limit the volume from all sources. Additionally, any concern regarding environmental conservation and Alabama citizens’ health and safety did not vary with the waste’s point of origin in a way allowing foreign, but not local, waste to be burdened.