TWO VIEWS: Why Supreme Court should rule against bag ban

Shoppers might soon discover that the grocery store is less expensive and more convenient.

Two weeks ago, the Texas Supreme Court heard oral arguments in a case questioning the legitimacy of municipal bans on plastic bags. If justices reaffirm an appellate court ruling, consumers will be unburdened from this clear example of government overreach.

At issue in the case of Laredo Merchants Association v. the City of Laredo is whether the city’s bag ban — and all others by extension — is allowed under state law. A plain text reading of the law leaves no doubt that it is not.

Texas’ Health and Safety Code is fairly straightforward, stating, “A local government or other political subdivision may not adopt an ordinance, rule, or regulation to … prohibit or restrict, for solid waste management purposes, the sale or use of a container or package in a manner not authorized by state law.”

FOLLOW US ON TWITTER: Viewpoints delivers the latest perspectives on current events.

That’s about as direct as it gets. Cities can’t ban plastic bags for trash-related reasons. But officials have tried to get around the law by performing a sort of mental gymnastics, arguing against the common understanding of words and intent.

For example, one of the city’s arguments is that a plastic bag isn’t a container or a package. But the dictionary disagrees.

Webster’s dictionary defines the word “bag” as a “container that may be closed for holding, storing, or carrying something” and the Oxford dictionary defines it to mean “a flexible container with an opening at the top.”

This common understanding of bag is also shared by the 4th Court of Appeals, the Texas attorney general’s office and numerous other interested parties. Hence, to argue that a bag is not a container takes more imagination than not.

Another of the city’s arguments is that the bag ban ordinance was not passed for solid waste management purposes, which is expressly prohibited by state law.

“In the ordinance, never anywhere in the drafts (was there) anything about solid waste management. It was always about beautification and flood control,” said Tricia Cortez, executive director of the Rio Grande International Study Center, one of the special interest groups behind the original ordinance.

But the city’s own documentation says otherwise.

In an official decree dated Aug. 19, 2013, all of the City Council’s past actions are recorded and the first one listed is: “Council made motion on October 15, 2007 for Citizens’ Environmental Advisory Committee (CEAC) to develop ordinance to deal with the litter problem from plastic checkout bags.”

From the start, the ordinance has had its roots in an environmentalist push “to deal with the litter problem,” and that’s a problem. Cities can’t pass local laws banning the generation of litter. That falls under the scope of solid waste management, and that’s not allowed by state law.

LIKE US ON FACEBOOK: Our Lone Star Politics page brings Texas news to your Facebook feed.

Considering the arguments, it’s clear that the city’s case doesn’t hold up. And if the Supreme Court finds the same, then it will mean a return of plastic shopping bags. But it will also mean something much more — a restoration of the rule of law.

See, Laredo isn’t the only city probably violating the law. A number of Texas cities, including Austin, Fort Stockton and Port Aransas, have adopted similar restrictions against sound advice. Those chickens could come home to roost, and rightfully so.

Cities can’t pick and choose which laws to follow, no matter how noble their intentions or how much they want to save the planet. We are a nation of laws and not of men or of social causes.

That’s a principle that needs to be reinforced with a favorable decision from the Texas Supreme Court. Once that happens, Texans will have struck a blow for order and convenience.

Quintero leads the Think Local Liberty project at the Texas Public Policy Foundation.

Reader Comments ...

Next Up in Opinion

Letters to the editor: May 21, 2018

Breakthrough! Refreshing news: President Trump’s lead lawyer says he wanted to have “the Hillary Clinton treatment” for the president. What a breakthrough for transparency. Clinton was treated to 11-plus hours of testimony to Congress, her files and servers turned over to the FBI, and Republican leaders asked the Justice Department...
Opinion: Trump breaks bread, glasses and party at lunch

POTUS coming to Tuesday lunch. Translated, the president of the United States is joining 50 Republican senators in the Capitol to crash their private Tuesday lunch. Nobody is glad to hear this on the Senate side. We love the constitutional separation of powers. The Senate is the last citadel of democracy, they say. We in the press are free as birds...
Opinion: Just saying yes to drug companies

Last week we learned that Novartis, the Swiss drug company, had paid Michael Cohen — Donald Trump’s personal lawyer — $1.2 million for what ended up being a single meeting. Then, on Friday, Trump announced a “plan” to reduce drug prices. Why the scare quotes? Because the “plan” was mostly free of substance...
Facebook comments: May 20, 2018
Facebook comments: May 20, 2018

In recent commentary the American-Statesman’s Bridget Grumet wrote about the uncertainty that those who receive federal housing aid are facing after Housing and Urban Development Secretary Ben Carson unveiled a proposal to raise the rents on millions of households who receive the assistance. “Be grateful for your good fortune if you don&rsquo...
Herman: Gubernatorial win for Valdez or White would be history-making
Herman: Gubernatorial win for Valdez or White would be history-making

Sometime Tuesday night the relatively few ballots will be tallied and we’ll bid a political farewell, possibly for all time, to one of the two contenders for the gubernatorial nomination of the once-great Democratic Party of Texas. The winner will advance to an upmountain (which is even steeper than uphill) battle with GOP Gov. Greg Abbott in...
More Stories