Georgia v. Tennessee Copper Company
206 U.S. 230 (1907)
Premium Feature
Subscribe to Lexplug to listen to the Case Podcast.
Rule of Law:
A state has a quasi-sovereign interest in protecting its natural resources, including its air and forests, from pollution originating in another state, and may sue in the U.S. Supreme Court for an injunction to abate such a public nuisance.
Facts:
- Two copper companies operated works in Tennessee near the border with Georgia.
- These works discharged large quantities of sulphur dioxide gas as part of their operations.
- The prevailing winds carried this noxious gas over large tracts of land in five counties within Georgia.
- The sulphurous fumes caused and threatened widespread destruction to forests, orchards, and crops in Georgia.
- Initially, the companies roasted ore in open heaps, but after a prior legal action, they switched to using tall chimneys.
- The State of Georgia found that the new tall chimneys caused the poisonous gases to be carried even greater distances into its territory.
- Georgia made an unsuccessful application to the State of Tennessee for relief from the pollution.
Procedural Posture:
- In 1904, the State of Georgia filed a bill in the U.S. Supreme Court, which was dismissed without prejudice after the defendants agreed to change their ore-roasting methods.
- Following continued pollution from new, taller chimneys, the State of Georgia filed the present bill in equity in the U.S. Supreme Court, exercising the court's original jurisdiction.
- Georgia sought an injunction to stop the Tennessee Copper Companies from discharging noxious gases over its territory.
- The Supreme Court denied a preliminary injunction but scheduled an early date for a final hearing.
- The parties agreed to try the case on affidavits.
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 a state, in its capacity as a quasi-sovereign, have the right to sue in the U.S. Supreme Court to enjoin private companies in another state from discharging noxious gases that cause significant environmental damage within the suing state's territory?
Opinions:
Majority - Justice Holmes
Yes. A state has the right to sue to enjoin such a public nuisance, as this suit is brought by the State of Georgia in its capacity as a quasi-sovereign, not merely as a private property owner. The State has an interest independent of its citizens' titles in all the earth and air within its domain. When states entered the Union, they surrendered the ability to use force to abate such nuisances, making a suit in the Supreme Court the appropriate alternative. Unlike in a private nuisance suit, the Court will not simply balance the economic harm to the plaintiff against the economic harm an injunction would cause the defendant; a state cannot be expected to surrender its quasi-sovereign rights for monetary compensation. The evidence clearly shows that the pollution is occurring on a large scale and causing significant damage, justifying an injunction.
Concurring - Justice Harlan
Yes. While the State of Georgia is entitled to the relief it seeks, the reasoning should be different. The Court should not apply special principles of equity just because the plaintiff is a state. The same rules that apply in suits between private parties should apply here. Georgia is entitled to relief not because it is a state, but because it is a party that has successfully proven its case under the standard rules of equity. The Court should not owe a special duty to Georgia simply because it possesses sovereign powers.
Analysis:
This case is foundational in environmental law, establishing the doctrine of 'quasi-sovereign interest' that allows states to act as guardians of their natural resources against external threats. It affirmed the Supreme Court's original jurisdiction as the proper venue for resolving interstate environmental disputes. By refusing to mechanically balance the economic equities as it might in a private suit, the Court prioritized a state's right to a healthy environment over the economic interests of a polluting industry, setting a crucial precedent for future interstate pollution litigation.
Unlock the full brief for Georgia v. Tennessee Copper Company