Milwaukee v. Illinois (Milwaukee II)
United States Supreme Court
451 U.S. 304 (1981)
- Written by Rose VanHofwegen, JD
Facts
Illinois (plaintiff) sought to prevent Milwaukee (defendant) from allegedly discharging some 200 million gallons of raw sewage daily into Lake Michigan. Congress had enacted the Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1948 over 20 years earlier, but the act proved inadequate. In Milwaukee I, the Supreme Court ruled that the 1948 act could not provide relief but Illinois could pursue a federal common-law nuisance action. Illinois promptly sued in federal district court. Five months later, Congress passed the Federal Water Pollution Control Act Amendments of 1972, now known as the Clean Water Act (CWA). The CWA established a comprehensive system of regulation that prohibits discharging pollutants into water without a permit. Milwaukee obtained permits without bringing its treatment plants into compliance. An enforcement action required Milwaukee to comply with effluent limits and improve its plants to control overflows. Meanwhile, Illinois’s federal nuisance action proceeded to trial. The federal district court found Illinois had established a nuisance action under federal common law and ordered Milwaukee to eliminate overflows and comply with more stringent effluent limits. The Seventh Circuit affirmed that the CWA had not preempted Illinois’s federal common-law nuisance claim but reversed to the extent that the effluent limits the court imposed were more stringent than the permits and Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) regulations. The Supreme Court granted review.
Rule of Law
Issue
Holding and Reasoning (Rehnquist, J.)
What to do next…
Here's why 830,000 law students have relied on our case briefs:
- Written by law professors and practitioners, not other law students. 46,400 briefs, keyed to 994 casebooks. Top-notch customer support.
- The right amount of information, includes the facts, issues, rule of law, holding and reasoning, and any concurrences and dissents.
- Access in your classes, works on your mobile and tablet. Massive library of related video lessons and high quality multiple-choice questions.
- Easy to use, uniform format for every case brief. Written in plain English, not in legalese. Our briefs summarize and simplify; they don’t just repeat the court’s language.