Ohio v. Wyandotte Chemicals Corp.
401 U.S. 493, 28 L. Ed. 2d 256, 1971 U.S. LEXIS 109 (1971)
Premium Feature
Subscribe to Lexplug to listen to the Case Podcast.
Rule of Law:
The Supreme Court's original jurisdiction over actions by a State against citizens of another state or aliens is not mandatory, and the Court may exercise its discretion to decline jurisdiction when the case involves complex factual issues better suited for a trial court and an adequate alternative forum is available.
Facts:
- The State of Ohio alleged that Wyandotte Chemicals Corp. (Wyandotte), a Michigan corporation, dumped mercury into streams that flow into Lake Erie.
- Ohio also alleged that Dow Chemical Company of Canada, Ltd. (Dow Canada), an Ontario corporation, engaged in the same conduct.
- The alleged mercury dumping was claimed to have contaminated and polluted Lake Erie's waters, vegetation, fish, and wildlife.
- Ohio further alleged that Dow Chemical Co. (Dow America), a Delaware corporation and parent company of Dow Canada, was jointly responsible for its subsidiary's actions.
- The alleged pollution caused harm to the natural resources of Lake Erie and to the citizens and inhabitants of Ohio.
Procedural Posture:
- The State of Ohio filed a motion for leave to file a bill of complaint directly with the Supreme Court of the United States.
- Ohio sought to invoke the Court's original jurisdiction to sue Wyandotte Chemicals Corp., Dow Chemical Co., and Dow Chemical Company of Canada, Ltd.
- The Supreme Court scheduled the motion for oral argument and invited the U.S. Solicitor General to file a brief and participate as amicus curiae.
Premium Content
Subscribe to Lexplug to view the complete brief
You're viewing a preview with Rule of Law, Facts, and Procedural Posture
Issue:
May the Supreme Court, in its discretion, decline to exercise its original jurisdiction over a public nuisance claim brought by a state against citizens of other states and a foreign country, even if jurisdiction is constitutionally and statutorily authorized?
Opinions:
Majority - Justice Harlan
Yes, the Supreme Court may in its discretion decline to exercise its original jurisdiction. Although the Court has jurisdiction over this controversy, its original jurisdiction is not mandatory, particularly in cases that do not raise significant federal law issues. The Court's primary role is as an appellate tribunal, and it is ill-equipped to handle the complex, novel, and extensive fact-finding required in this environmental nuisance case. The original purposes of this jurisdiction—to provide states with a neutral forum and one that could assert personal jurisdiction over non-residents—are not implicated here, as Ohio's state courts have long-arm jurisdiction and can provide an adequate alternative forum. Furthermore, multiple state, federal, and international bodies are already actively involved in addressing the broader problem of Lake Erie pollution, making it impractical and inappropriate for the Court to adjudicate one small piece of the issue.
Dissenting - Justice Douglas
No, the Supreme Court should exercise its jurisdiction in this case. This lawsuit presents a classic public nuisance claim, a type of case for which the Court's original jurisdiction has historically been invoked to protect a sovereign state from harm originating beyond its borders. The pollution of Lake Erie is a matter of 'transcending public importance.' Federal environmental laws do not preempt state action; rather, they preserve the primary role of states in controlling water pollution. The Court's concerns about factual complexity are overstated, as it has successfully managed far more complex original jurisdiction cases by appointing a Special Master, who could be assisted by scientific experts. The Court should not abstain from its duty to resolve such a significant interstate controversy.
Analysis:
This case establishes that the Supreme Court's original jurisdiction under Article III is discretionary rather than compulsory, particularly in cases between a state and citizens of another state. It prioritizes the Court's primary function as the nation's highest appellate body over its role as a court of first instance. The decision created a prudential framework for declining jurisdiction based on the nature of the dispute, the Court's institutional competence for fact-finding, and the availability of a suitable alternative forum. This precedent significantly limits the types of cases states can successfully bring as original actions, steering fact-intensive, common law disputes like environmental torts towards lower courts.
