International Paper Co. v. Ouellette et al.
479 U.S. 481 (1987)
Premium Feature
Subscribe to Lexplug to listen to the Case Podcast.
Rule of Law:
The Clean Water Act (CWA) pre-empts a common law nuisance suit to the extent it seeks to apply the law of an affected state against an out-of-state pollution source. However, the CWA does not pre-empt an action brought under the common law of the state where the pollution source is located (the source state).
Facts:
- International Paper Company (IPC) operates a pulp and paper mill on the New York side of Lake Champlain.
- As part of its operations, IPC discharges effluents into the lake through a diffusion pipe.
- The pipe runs from the New York mill and ends a short distance before the state boundary line dividing the lake with Vermont.
- A group of property owners who reside or lease land on the Vermont shore alleged that IPC's discharge of pollutants polluted the lake water.
- The owners claimed the water became 'foul, unhealthy, smelly, and... unfit for recreational use,' which diminished their property values.
Procedural Posture:
- A group of Vermont property owners filed a class action nuisance suit against International Paper Company (IPC) in Vermont State Superior Court.
- IPC removed the case to the U.S. District Court for the District of Vermont.
- IPC moved for summary judgment and judgment on the pleadings, arguing the Clean Water Act pre-empted the Vermont state-law suit.
- The District Court denied IPC's motion, holding that the CWA's saving clause permitted the suit to proceed under the law of Vermont, the state where the injury occurred.
- The District Court certified its decision for an interlocutory appeal.
- The U.S. Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit affirmed the District Court's decision.
- The U.S. Supreme Court granted certiorari to resolve a circuit conflict on the issue.
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 Clean Water Act pre-empt a private common law nuisance suit, filed in the state where the injury occurred, under that state's law, against a pollution source located in another state?
Opinions:
Majority - Justice Powell
No, the Clean Water Act does not fully pre-empt the suit, but it does pre-empt the application of the affected state's (Vermont's) law; the law of the source state (New York) must be applied. The CWA establishes a comprehensive and complex regulatory scheme, centered on the NPDES permit system, which balances the interests of the federal government, source states, and affected states. Allowing an affected state's common law to impose liability on an out-of-state source would interfere with this scheme, undermine the goals of efficiency and predictability, and allow the affected state to do indirectly what it cannot do directly: regulate an out-of-state polluter. Applying the source state's law, however, does not disrupt this balance, as the source state already has the authority to impose stricter standards, including through its own common law.
Concurring-in-part-and-dissenting-in-part - Justice Brennan
No, the suit is not pre-empted, but the Court should not have decided the choice-of-law issue. The Court correctly holds that the CWA does not pre-empt the nuisance suit itself. However, it improperly reached the question of which state's law to apply, as this issue was not ripe for decision; the parties had not even established that New York and Vermont nuisance law differed. Standard conflict-of-law principles, which the CWA's broad saving clauses do not displace, should govern. These principles, applied by the Vermont district court, would determine the applicable law, and Congress showed no clear intent to pre-empt this traditional judicial function.
Concurring-in-part-and-dissenting-in-part - Justice Stevens
No, the suit is not pre-empted, but the Court's choice-of-law holding is an improper advisory opinion. It is correct to affirm the denial of the motion to dismiss, as the CWA does not deprive the court of jurisdiction. However, the Court had no business deciding which state's substantive law must apply. That issue has not been litigated, Vermont's own choice-of-law rules might point to New York law, and the laws of both states may be identical. The Court's ruling on this point violates the principle of judicial restraint by issuing an advisory opinion on a hypothetical dispute.
Analysis:
This case establishes a significant choice-of-law rule for interstate pollution disputes under the Clean Water Act. It prevents downstream or affected states from imposing their own common law standards on out-of-state pollution sources, thereby protecting the integrity and uniformity of the CWA's permit system. By creating a 'source-state law' rule, the Court balances the federal interest in a predictable regulatory scheme with the preserved right of individuals to seek common law remedies for pollution. This decision limits the legal exposure of polluters to a single set of state common law rules—those of their home state—rather than the potentially conflicting laws of multiple affected states.
Unlock the full brief for International Paper Co. v. Ouellette et al.