## Facts

- Flint, Michigan previously purchased treated drinking water from Lake Huron through Detroit’s system.
- While awaiting completion of a new regional water project, Flint switched in 2014 to the Flint River as an interim source.
- Prior engineering analysis indicated Flint River water would require treatment changes, including corrosion control, to meet safety requirements, but necessary measures were allegedly not implemented before the switch.
- Residents reported foul-smelling, discolored, and bad-tasting water soon after the change.
- Testing identified bacterial contamination and later revealed elevated lead levels and other contaminants; a major industrial user stopped using the water due to corrosion concerns.
- Government officials allegedly gave inconsistent and sometimes misleading assurances about safety, even after violations and risks were identified.
- Flint later returned to the prior water source, but damage to the distribution system allegedly caused continued lead leaching.
- Residents were allegedly billed for the water and subjected to collection practices despite the contamination.
- Flint residents and property owners filed two putative class actions under 42 U.S.C. § 1983, asserting constitutional injuries (including substantive due process bodily integrity and equal protection) against state and local officials and entities.

## Issues

1. Whether the Safe Drinking Water Act (SDWA) expressly or impliedly precludes § 1983 suits asserting independently existing constitutional violations arising from the Flint water crisis.
2. Whether the district courts properly treated SDWA displacement arguments as a subject-matter-jurisdiction bar warranting dismissal under Rule 12(b)(1).
3. Whether the Eleventh Amendment bars claims against Michigan, its agencies, and state officials, and whether plaintiffs may seek prospective relief against state officials under Ex parte Young.

## Decision

- The Sixth Circuit reversed the dismissals of the § 1983 constitutional claims to the extent they were dismissed for lack of subject matter jurisdiction based on SDWA displacement.
- The court held the SDWA does not preclude § 1983 claims grounded in constitutional rights rather than SDWA-created rights.
- The court affirmed in part the dismissal of claims barred by the Eleventh Amendment, including damages claims against the state and state officials sued in their official capacities.
- The court allowed suits for prospective injunctive or declaratory relief against appropriate state officials to proceed under Ex parte Young and noted individual-capacity claims are not barred by sovereign immunity.
- The consolidated cases were remanded for further proceedings, including merits and other defenses.

## Legal Principles

- Federal statutes preclude § 1983 constitutional claims only when Congress clearly intended to displace § 1983 remedies; absent express language, implied preclusion requires a truly comprehensive enforcement scheme.
- The SDWA’s enforcement and citizen-suit mechanisms do not provide the type of comprehensive remedial scheme that implies displacement of § 1983 remedies for distinct constitutional injuries.
- Constitutional protections (e.g., substantive due process bodily integrity and equal protection) exist independently of the SDWA; alleging constitutional violations based on government conduct related to drinking water is not the same as enforcing SDWA standards through § 1983.
- Statutory “savings” language preserving other remedies weighs against inferring implied preclusion of § 1983 actions.
- Even if a federal statute supports a preemption defense, that generally does not deprive federal courts of subject matter jurisdiction; it is typically a merits issue rather than a Rule 12(b)(1) defect.
- The Eleventh Amendment bars damages claims against a state, its agencies, and state officials sued in their official capacities, absent waiver or valid congressional abrogation.
- Under Ex parte Young, plaintiffs may seek prospective injunctive or declaratory relief against state officials in their official capacities to end ongoing violations of federal law.
- Sovereign immunity does not bar § 1983 claims against state officials in their individual capacities, though other defenses may apply.

## Conclusion

The Sixth Circuit held that the SDWA does not displace § 1983 claims asserting independent constitutional violations arising from the Flint water crisis, reversed jurisdictional dismissals on that basis, affirmed sovereign-immunity dismissals of certain official-capacity damages claims, and remanded to allow remaining claims—including appropriate prospective relief—to proceed.


Boler v. Earley, 865 F.3d 391 (6th Cir. 2017)