Facts
- Illinois alleged that Wisconsin municipalities and two Wisconsin sewerage commissions discharged inadequately treated sewage and industrial waste into Lake Michigan.
- Illinois claimed the discharges polluted interstate waters and caused injury to Illinois and its residents.
- Illinois moved for leave to file an original action in the U.S. Supreme Court, asserting the suit was effectively against Wisconsin because the defendants were state instrumentalities.
- The defendants were cities and local sewerage commissions rather than the State of Wisconsin itself.
Issues
- Whether Wisconsin municipalities and sewerage commissions are “States” for purposes of the Supreme Court’s exclusive original jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1251(a)(1).
- If not, whether a federal district court has jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1331(a) over Illinois’s interstate water pollution nuisance claim.
- Whether federal common law supplies the rule of decision for interstate or navigable water pollution, and how that common law relates to federal environmental statutes.
Decision
- The Court denied Illinois’s motion for leave to file an original bill of complaint in the Supreme Court.
- The Court held that the municipal defendants and sewerage commissions were not “States” within the meaning of § 1251(a)(1), so exclusive original jurisdiction for controversies between States did not apply.
- The Court concluded Illinois could proceed in federal district court under § 1331(a) because the claim arose under federal common law governing interstate water pollution.
- The Court recognized that federal common law governs pollution of interstate or navigable waters and applies to air and water in their ambient or interstate aspects.
- The Court stated that existing federal environmental statutes, including the Water Pollution Control Act, did not bar the use of federal common law to seek abatement, though statutory and state standards could inform the federal rule.
Legal Principles
- Political subdivisions and local instrumentalities are not “States” for purposes of the Supreme Court’s exclusive original jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1251(a)(1).
- The Supreme Court’s original jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1251(b)(3) (State versus out-of-state defendants) is discretionary when a federal district court can hear the case.
- Federal common law claims may qualify as “laws” of the United States for federal question jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1331(a), including in interstate water pollution nuisance actions.
- Federal common law supplies a federal rule of decision for pollution of interstate or navigable waters where a uniform federal approach is required.
- Federal environmental statutes may inform federal common law standards but do not necessarily define the full scope of that common law; state environmental standards may be considered but are not controlling.
Conclusion
The Court refused to hear Illinois’s interstate water pollution complaint as an original action because the defendants were not “States” under § 1251(a)(1), and it held that Illinois could pursue a federal common law nuisance claim in federal district court under § 1331(a), with federal common law operating alongside federal statutory schemes.