baitfish. This difference posed a threat to Maine’s natural resources, and absent a less discriminatory means of protecting the environment — and none was available — the importation of baitfish from any state could properly be banned. Id. at 140,106 S.Ct. 2440. The Plaintiffs do not quarrel with the Defendants’ position that the health and safety of Virginia citizens is a legitimate local interest. Neither do we. Nevertheless, in order to survive the Plaintiffs’ motion for summary judgment -with respect to the first prong of strict scrutiny analysis, the Defendants must carry their burden of showing that MSW generated outside Virginia is more dangerous than MSW generated in Virginia. Chemical Waste Management, Inc. v. Hunt, 504 U.S. 334, 343-44, 112 S.Ct. 2009, 119 L.Ed.2d 121 (1992) (<HOLDING>). In this regard, the Defendants have offered
holding that a statute may be facially challenged only  by establishing that no set of circumstances exists under which the statute would be valid ie that the law is unconstitutional in all of its applications or at least that the statute lacks a plainly legitimate sweep  holding that the imminence standard does not require an existing harm meaning ongoing disposal of a solid or hazardous waste but the threat of harm due to disposal in the past of solid or hazardous waste must be present and ongoing recognizing that while the health and safety of the citizens of alabama may be a legitimate local interest alabama offered no evidence that hazardous waste generated outside alabama is more dangerous than hazardous waste generated in alabama therefore alabama failed to carry its burden of showing that the alabama statute imposing an additional fee on all hazardous waste generated outside alabama and disposed of at alabama facilities was demonstrably justified by a valid factor unrelated to economic protectionism holding that zoning regulations are presumptively valid and the burden is upon him who attacks such regulation to carry the extraordinary burden of both alleging and proving that it is unreasonable and bears no substantial relation to public health safety morals or general welfare holding that defendants failed to carry burden of proof to show that plaintiffs failed to mitigate damages when among other things they offered no evidence contradicting the plaintiffs evidence