Lexplug logoLexplug

Boler v. Earley

Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit
865 F.3d 391 (2017)
ELI5:

Rule of Law:

The Safe Drinking Water Act (SDWA) does not preclude claims brought under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 for alleged constitutional violations, as Congress did not intend for the SDWA's remedial scheme to be the exclusive avenue for relief for harms related to contaminated drinking water.


Facts:

  • In 2011, a study commissioned by the City of Flint determined that water from the Flint River would require significant treatment to meet safety regulations before being used as a municipal water source.
  • Under the authority of state-appointed emergency managers, the City of Flint switched its water source from the Detroit Water and Sewerage Department (DWSD) to the Flint River in April 2014 as a temporary cost-saving measure.
  • Upon switching to the Flint River, the City of Flint did not apply necessary anti-corrosive agents to the water.
  • Immediately following the switch, residents complained of foul-smelling, discolored, and bad-tasting water. Subsequent testing revealed E. coli, links to Legionnaire's disease, and high lead levels from corroding pipes.
  • General Motors stopped using the Flint River water because it was corroding car parts.
  • In March 2015, the Flint City Council voted to reconnect to the DWSD water supply, but the state-appointed emergency manager overruled this decision.
  • In October 2015, after a public health emergency was declared, the emergency manager ordered the city to reconnect to the DWSD. However, by this time, the pipes were so corroded that the water continued to have elevated lead levels.
  • Throughout the crisis, the City of Flint continued to bill residents for the contaminated water and pursued collection efforts, including placing liens on property for non-payment.

Procedural Posture:

  • Plaintiffs in two separate class actions, Boler and Mays, sued various state and city officials in the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Michigan.
  • The complaints alleged constitutional violations under 42 U.S.C. § 1983, conspiracy, and state law claims related to the Flint water crisis.
  • In Boler, the district court dismissed the case for lack of subject matter jurisdiction, holding that the plaintiffs' § 1983 claims were precluded by the Safe Drinking Water Act (SDWA).
  • Relying on its Boler analysis, the district court also dismissed the Mays case on the same preclusion grounds.
  • The plaintiffs in both cases appealed to the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit, which consolidated the cases.

Locked

Premium Content

Subscribe to Lexplug to view the complete brief

You're viewing a preview with Rule of Law, Facts, and Procedural Posture

Issue:

Does the comprehensive remedial scheme of the Safe Drinking Water Act (SDWA) preclude plaintiffs from bringing claims under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 for alleged constitutional violations arising from the same set of facts?


Opinions:

Majority - Judge Stranch

No, the Safe Drinking Water Act (SDWA) does not preclude the plaintiffs' § 1983 claims for constitutional violations. The court's analysis, guided by Supreme Court precedent in cases like Fitzgerald v. Barnstable School Committee, focused on determining congressional intent. The court found no evidence in the SDWA's text or legislative history to suggest Congress intended to displace § 1983 constitutional claims. Furthermore, the SDWA's remedial scheme, which provides for injunctive relief through citizen suits but not monetary damages, is not so comprehensive as to indicate an intent to foreclose other remedies. Most importantly, the court reasoned that the rights and protections afforded by the SDWA 'diverge in significant ways' from the constitutional rights at issue, such as those under the Due Process and Equal Protection Clauses. Conduct could violate one without violating the other, demonstrating that the statutory and constitutional rights are not congruent. Therefore, the defendants failed to meet their burden of proving that Congress intended the SDWA to be the exclusive remedy for the harms alleged.



Analysis:

This decision is significant for preserving a critical avenue for relief for individuals harmed by governmental misconduct that also falls within the scope of a comprehensive federal regulatory statute. By applying the Fitzgerald test, the court reinforced that statutory preclusion of § 1983 constitutional claims is the exception, not the rule. The ruling ensures that victims of events like the Flint water crisis can pursue not just the statutory remedy of injunctive relief (stopping the harm) but also the constitutional remedy of damages for the injuries they suffered. This has broad implications for future environmental justice cases, establishing that compliance with a federal statute like the SDWA does not insulate state actors from liability for separate constitutional torts like violating due process or equal protection.

G

Gunnerbot

AI-powered case assistant

Loaded: Boler v. Earley (2017)

Try: "What was the holding?" or "Explain the dissent"