Lexplug logoLexplug

Illinois v. City of Milwaukee

Supreme Court of the United States
1972 U.S. LEXIS 107, 31 L. Ed. 2d 712, 406 U.S. 91 (1972)
ELI5:

Rule of Law:

Federal common law provides a cause of action to abate a public nuisance in interstate or navigable waters, and federal district courts have subject matter jurisdiction over such claims under 28 U.S.C. § 1331(a).


Facts:

  • The State of Illinois alleged that four cities in Wisconsin, the Sewerage Commission of the City of Milwaukee, and the Metropolitan Sewerage Commission of the County of Milwaukee were polluting Lake Michigan.
  • The defendants were allegedly discharging approximately 200 million gallons of raw or inadequately treated sewage and other waste materials into the lake daily.
  • Lake Michigan is an interstate body of water bordered by Illinois, Wisconsin, and other states.
  • Illinois and its political subdivisions prohibit such discharges, while the named Wisconsin entities allegedly do not take similar actions.
  • Illinois characterized the pollution from the Wisconsin entities as a public nuisance that it sought to abate.

Procedural Posture:

  • The State of Illinois filed a motion for leave to file a bill of complaint directly with the Supreme Court of the United States.
  • The complaint named four Wisconsin cities and two sewerage commissions as defendants.
  • Illinois sought to invoke the Supreme Court's original jurisdiction to hear the case as a court of first instance.

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 a federal district court have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1331(a) over a claim by a state to abate pollution of interstate waters by political subdivisions of another state, thereby allowing the Supreme Court to decline to exercise its original jurisdiction?


Opinions:

Majority - Justice Douglas

Yes. A federal district court has jurisdiction over such claims, allowing the Supreme Court to exercise its discretion to decline original jurisdiction. The term 'laws' in the federal question jurisdiction statute, 28 U.S.C. § 1331(a), encompasses claims founded upon federal common law. The Court held that there is a federal common law governing air and water in their interstate aspects, which includes a cause of action to abate a public nuisance caused by interstate water pollution. Because a state's claim to abate such a nuisance 'arises under' the laws of the United States, federal district courts are an available and appropriate forum. The Supreme Court's original jurisdiction in cases brought by a state against citizens of another state is not exclusive, and the Court exercises its jurisdiction sparingly. Since an adequate alternative forum exists in the federal district court, the Court denied Illinois's motion to file its complaint.



Analysis:

This landmark decision established the existence of a federal common law of nuisance for interstate pollution, providing a crucial legal tool for environmental litigation before the comprehensive federal statutes of the 1970s. By confirming that federal district courts could hear these cases, the ruling opened a new and more accessible venue for resolving complex environmental disputes between states. This holding empowered states to protect their natural resources from out-of-state pollution through the federal court system, though this common law cause of action was later largely preempted by the Federal Water Pollution Control Act Amendments of 1972 (the Clean Water Act).

🤖 Gunnerbot:
Query Illinois v. City of Milwaukee (1972) directly. You can ask questions about any aspect of the case. If it's in the case, Gunnerbot will know.
Locked
Subscribe to Lexplug to chat with the Gunnerbot about this case.

Unlock the full brief for Illinois v. City of Milwaukee