The environmental and economic burdens resulting from the nation's burgeoning use and disposal of packaging materials—principally beer and soft drink cans and bottles—has been the subject of state legislation for more than 25 years. Not suprisingly, the history of packaging legislation has been a stormy one, due in large part to staunch industry opposition in every forum, including the media, legislative chambers, and the courts. The feverish pitch of this conflict continues: three states recently presented the issues to voters in referenda, and three court decisions have passed judgment on such laws in the past few months. These rulings highlight the environmental issues surrounding this type of legislation and demonstrate well the judicial approach typically encountered in such cases.

In Clover Leaf Creamery, Inc. v. State¹ and Juice Tree of Hawaii, Inc. v. Yuen,² courts in Minnesota and Hawaii voided state laws prohibiting the sale of plastic beverage containers. These courts were not the first to conclude that plastic presents no greater risk of environmental harm than other types of packaging material and thus may not constitutionally be subjected to special taxes or other burdensome restrictions. On the other hand, Can Manufacturers Institute v. State³ upheld another Minnesota statute which established a comprehensive mechanism for administrative review of new packaging materials and designs prior to their introduction into state commerce. Even though the law had yet to be fully implemented, the court dismissed almost lightly the assertion of constitutional infirmities in the program, finding its likely benefits far greater than necessary to withstand constitutional challenge.