131 n. 7 (E.D.Va.1982) (three-judge court). The Commonwealth can thus limit the power of political subdivisions to contract with waste disposal facilities of any kind, but the Commonwealth may not authorize a political subdivision to contract with such waste disposal facilities in violation of the Constitution, as here. There is no reason apparent why Virginia may not permit her political subdivisions to operate waste disposal facilities for their own benefit, either performing the operation itself or by contract. Or Virginia may do the same. In that event, the Commonwealth or the political subdivision disposing of local waste would act under the market participant exception to the Dormant Commerce Clause. See Reeves, Inc. v. Stake, 447 U.S. 429, 100 S.Ct. 2271, 65 L.Ed.2d 244 (1980) (<HOLDING>); Nat’l Solid Waste Mgmt. Assn. v. Williams,
holding that a stateowned concrete plant could choose to sell only to state residents recognizing that a state has a legitimate interest in all insurance policies protecting its residents against risks an interest which the state can protect even though the state action may have repercussions beyond state lines holding that plaintiff failed to establish a constructive discharge claim because she did not assert that her employer was motivated by a desire to avoid pretermination procedures without considering whether plaintiff could alternatively allege only that she was forced to choose between resignation and termination holding that fourteenth amendment only applies to state action holding that the wellestablished rule is that it is the function of the state to determine how its residents may enter into the marital relationship