Home › Case briefs › Civil Procedure

Illinois v. City of Milwaukee

Supreme Court of the United States · 1972 · Civil Procedure

Civil ProcedureOriginal JurisdictionFederal Question JurisdictionFederal Common Laworiginal jurisdictionfederal question28 U.S.C. § 133128 U.S.C. § 1251

Facts

Illinois alleged that Wisconsin cities and sewerage commissions were discharging about 200 million gallons daily of raw or inadequately treated sewage and other waste into Lake Michigan in the Milwaukee area. Illinois asserted that it and its subdivisions prohibit and prevent such discharges, while the defendants do not. Illinois sought abatement of the alleged public nuisance. The defendants named were municipalities and sewerage agencies, not the State of Wisconsin itself.

Issue

Whether Illinois could invoke the Supreme Court's original jurisdiction to sue Wisconsin municipalities and sewerage agencies over interstate water pollution, and whether the same controversy could instead be brought in federal district court under 28 U.S.C. § 1331(a). More specifically, the Court asked whether a claim to abate pollution of interstate or navigable waters arises under the laws of the United States because it is governed by federal common law.

Rule

The Supreme Court's original jurisdiction should be used sparingly and is not mandatory when an appropriate alternative forum exists with jurisdiction over the parties and power to grant suitable relief. Political subdivisions are not "States" within 28 U.S.C. § 1251(a)(1). Claims founded on federal common law, including suits to abate a public nuisance in interstate or navigable waters, arise under the "laws" of the United States for purposes of 28 U.S.C. § 1331(a), and a State may bring such an action in federal district court.

🔒

See the holding & full analysis

Create a free KwikCourt account to unlock the rest of this brief — and practice the case.

The court's holding and reasoning
Doctrine tests, pitfalls & exam hypotheticals
10 practice questions + 4 AI-graded essays on this case

Free sample · practice this case

Test yourself

One of 10 multiple-choice questions for this case. Pick an answer to see why.

Ohio files a motion for leave to sue the City of Erie, Pennsylvania, and the Lake Shore Waste Authority in the Supreme Court, alleging their discharges into Lake Erie are creating a public nuisance affecting Toledo's water supply. A federal district court in Pennsylvania could exercise jurisdiction over the named defendants and grant injunctive relief.

How should the Supreme Court most likely respond?

Explanation. The majority held that the Court's original jurisdiction should be used sparingly and is obligatory only in appropriate cases. Appropriateness depends not just on the seriousness of the dispute, but also on whether another forum has jurisdiction over the parties, can litigate the issues, and can provide appropriate relief. Where an adequate federal district court forum exists, the Court may deny leave and remit the parties there.