## Facts

- Aquatic nuisance species (ANS) have been introduced into the Great Lakes through vessel ballast water, causing substantial ecological and economic harm.
- Federal law (NANPCA, as amended by NISA) directed the U.S. Coast Guard to regulate ballast-water practices, including Great Lakes–specific requirements, but federal rules did not require treatment for vessels declaring “No Ballast On Board” (NOBOB) despite residual water and sediment.
- Michigan enacted a ballast-water statute requiring oceangoing vessels using Michigan ports to obtain a state permit and satisfy reporting and management/treatment requirements intended to reduce ANS risk, including for NOBOB-related practices.
- A coalition of shipping companies, shipping associations, and port-related entities sued Michigan officials, alleging the statute was preempted by federal law and violated the dormant Commerce Clause and related constitutional limits.
- The district court dismissed the claims and upheld the statute, relying in part on NISA’s savings clause preserving state ANS-control measures.
- Plaintiffs appealed.

## Issues

1. Whether plaintiffs had Article III standing to challenge the statute’s provisions regulating vessels that discharge ballast water into Michigan waters.
2. Whether NANPCA/NISA preempted Michigan’s ballast-water statute under field preemption or conflict preemption.
3. Whether the statute violated the dormant Commerce Clause by discriminating against or unduly burdening interstate or foreign commerce, or by regulating extraterritorially.

## Decision

- The Sixth Circuit held plaintiffs lacked standing to challenge the statute’s discharge-specific provision because they did not show a concrete, imminent injury from that portion.
- As to the provisions plaintiffs could challenge (including the permit requirement and regulation affecting NOBOB vessels), the court rejected field and conflict preemption arguments.
- The court rejected the dormant Commerce Clause and related constitutional challenges, concluding the statute was evenhanded and any incidental burdens were justified by significant local interests.
- The court affirmed the district court’s dismissal.

## Legal Principles

- Standing requires a concrete, particularized injury that is actual or imminent; courts will not decide hypothetical disputes or issue advisory opinions.
- A federal savings clause and statutory structure inviting state participation weigh strongly against finding field preemption.
- Conflict preemption requires impossibility of dual compliance or a state law that obstructs federal objectives; state requirements that add to federal standards may survive when they advance the same general purpose and do not contradict federal mandates.
- Under dormant Commerce Clause review, a nondiscriminatory state law serving legitimate local interests is generally valid unless incidental burdens on commerce are clearly excessive relative to local benefits.

## Conclusion

The court upheld Michigan’s ballast-water permitting and management requirements against preemption and dormant Commerce Clause attacks, while limiting the challenge for lack of standing as to discharge-specific provisions where plaintiffs failed to show imminent injury.


Fednav, Ltd. v. Chester, 547 F.3d 607 (6th Cir. 2008)