Missouri v. Illinois
200 U.S. 496 (1906)
Premium Feature
Subscribe to Lexplug to listen to the Case Podcast.
Rule of Law:
When a state seeks to enjoin another state from creating a public nuisance such as interstate water pollution, the plaintiff state must prove its case by clear and satisfactory evidence, showing a harm of serious magnitude that is not doubtful or based on mere speculation.
Facts:
- The State of Illinois authorized the Sanitary District of Chicago to construct an artificial channel.
- This channel was designed to divert sewage from Chicago away from Lake Michigan and into the Desplaines River.
- The Desplaines River flows into the Illinois River, which in turn flows into the Mississippi River.
- The city of St. Louis, Missouri, is located downstream on the Mississippi River and draws its water supply from it.
- Missouri alleged that the 1,500 tons of 'poisonous filth' discharged daily would poison its water supply, making it unfit for drinking and other purposes.
- Several of Missouri's own cities and towns, including some upstream of St. Louis, also discharged their sewage into the Missouri and Mississippi rivers.
Procedural Posture:
- The State of Missouri brought an original suit in the U.S. Supreme Court against the State of Illinois and the Sanitary District of Chicago.
- Illinois filed a demurrer to the bill, arguing the Court lacked jurisdiction and that Missouri had not stated a valid claim.
- The Supreme Court overruled the demurrer, establishing its jurisdiction to hear such interstate disputes.
- Missouri then filed a supplemental bill after the drainage canal began operation.
- Illinois and the Sanitary District filed answers, denying the allegations of harm and asserting that Missouri's own cities were responsible for any pollution.
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 discharge of Chicago's sewage into the Mississippi River watershed by Illinois and its sanitary district create a public nuisance of such serious magnitude, proven by clear and satisfactory evidence, that it warrants an injunction by the Supreme Court against Illinois?
Opinions:
Majority - Mr. Justice Holmes
No. The discharge of Chicago's sewage into the Mississippi River watershed does not warrant an injunction because Missouri failed to prove by clear and satisfactory evidence that Illinois's actions caused a public nuisance of serious magnitude. The Court reasoned that to warrant intervention in a dispute between sovereign states, the standard of proof is much higher than in a typical nuisance case between private citizens. The evidence presented was largely circumstantial and highly contested, with experts on both sides providing contradictory testimony regarding the survival and travel of typhoid bacilli over such a long distance (357 miles). The Court noted the plaintiff's case depended on 'an inference of the unseen,' as there was no visible increase in filth or new smell; in fact, the dilution from Lake Michigan's fresh water had improved the Illinois River's observable condition. Furthermore, Missouri's own practice of allowing its cities to discharge sewage into the same river system weakened its equitable position and made it more difficult to prove that Illinois was the sole or primary cause of any contamination in St. Louis.
Analysis:
This case establishes an exceptionally high burden of proof for states suing other states over interstate pollution under the Supreme Court's original jurisdiction. It created a quasi-equitable defense similar to the 'unclean hands' doctrine in interstate disputes, suggesting that a state's own contribution to a problem undermines its ability to seek an injunction against another state. The decision reflects the Court's reluctance to act as a legislature for interstate environmental policy and to issue injunctions based on conflicting scientific testimony. This precedent made it significantly more difficult for downstream states to win pollution cases against upstream states without overwhelming and unequivocal scientific evidence.
