Town of Canterbury v. Commissioner of Environmental Protection
772 A.2d 687, 2001 Conn. App. LEXIS 187, 62 Conn. App. 816 (2001)
Premium Feature
Subscribe to Lexplug to listen to the Case Podcast.
Rule of Law:
A municipality, as a political subdivision and 'creature of the state,' lacks legal standing to challenge the constitutionality of state laws, which includes duly enacted regulations of state agencies.
Facts:
- The Town of Canterbury applied to the Commissioner of Environmental Protection for a permit to construct and operate a municipal solid waste transfer station.
- The Commissioner issued a proposed decision granting the permit to Canterbury.
- Pursuant to a state regulation, the Commissioner imposed two conditions on the permit.
- The first condition required Canterbury to properly close an adjacent landfill site, which was owned by a third party, before beginning operation of its new facility.
- The second condition required Canterbury to exclude certain individuals and businesses associated with the adjacent landfill from managing the proposed facility.
- Canterbury believed these conditions, and the underlying regulation authorizing them, were unconstitutional.
Procedural Posture:
- The Town of Canterbury filed an action for a declaratory judgment in the Superior Court, challenging the constitutionality of a regulation promulgated by the Commissioner of Environmental Protection.
- The defendant Commissioner moved to dismiss the complaint for lack of subject matter jurisdiction, arguing that the town lacked standing.
- The trial court granted the motion to dismiss, agreeing that the Town of Canterbury lacked standing to challenge the state regulation.
- The Town of Canterbury, as appellant, appealed the judgment of dismissal to the appellate court.
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 town, as a political subdivision of the state, have legal standing to challenge the constitutionality of a state agency's regulation?
Opinions:
Majority - Foti, J.
No. A town, as a political subdivision of the state, does not have legal standing to challenge the constitutionality of a state agency's regulation. The court reasoned that municipalities are 'creatures of the state' and derive all their powers from the state. Citing precedents like Horton v. Meskill, the court affirmed the principle that a municipality may not challenge the constitutionality of the state's laws. The court extended this logic to agency regulations, stating that 'Valid agency regulations have the force of statutes and constitute state law.' Because state agencies enact regulations with legislative oversight, these regulations are considered enactments of the state itself, and a political subdivision cannot bring a constitutional challenge against its creator.
Analysis:
This decision reinforces the long-standing legal doctrine of state sovereignty over its political subdivisions, confirming that subordinate government entities cannot sue their sovereign creator on constitutional grounds. It explicitly extends this prohibition from state statutes to administrative regulations, treating them as legally equivalent for the purpose of standing. This ruling solidifies the hierarchical relationship between state and local governments, limiting the avenues through which municipalities can legally contest state-level policies they find objectionable and forcing them to seek remedies through political or legislative channels rather than constitutional litigation.
