Boler v. Earley, 865 F.3d 391

Background

In 2014 Flint switched its water source to the Flint River under emergency managers without completing required corrosion-control treatment; residents soon reported foul water and later elevated lead and bacterial contamination.
Plaintiffs in two consolidated class actions (Boler and Mays) sued state and local officials under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 (due process, equal protection, Contract Clause, state-created danger) and § 1985, plus state-law claims, seeking injunctive relief, damages, and remediation.
The district court dismissed the § 1983 claims as precluded by the Safe Drinking Water Act (SDWA) and declined supplemental jurisdiction over state claims; Mays was dismissed on the same grounds. Appeals followed and were consolidated.
The Sixth Circuit reviewed whether the SDWA precludes § 1983 constitutional claims, whether § 1985 claims survive, and whether Eleventh Amendment sovereign immunity or Ex Parte Young permit suit against state defendants.
The Sixth Circuit reversed dismissal on SDWA preclusion, held § 1985 claims may proceed, but affirmed dismissal of claims against the State and certain state agencies/officials on Eleventh Amendment grounds while permitting Ex Parte Young prospective claims in Mays against Governor Snyder.

Issues

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether the SDWA precludes § 1983 suits asserting constitutional violations	§ 1983 enforces independent constitutional rights (due process, equal protection, Contract Clause) and is not displaced by SDWA	SDWA’s detailed remedial scheme and citizen-suit provisions evidence congressional intent to preclude § 1983 remedies	Reversed district court: SDWA does not preclude § 1983 claims because text/legislative history lack clear preclusive intent, SDWA remedies are not as comprehensive as § 1983, and statutory protections diverge from constitutional rights
Whether § 1985 conspiracy claims survive dismissal tied to § 1983 claims	§ 1985 claims are viable independent conspiratorial claims tied to equal protection deprivation	§ 1985 fails if underlying § 1983 constitutional claims are precluded	Reversed: § 1985 claims may proceed because § 1983 claims are not precluded
Whether Eleventh Amendment bars suit against State, agencies, and Governor in official capacity	Plaintiffs: State conduct and litigation behavior waived immunity or Ex Parte Young allows prospective relief	State: sovereign immunity bars suits for money damages and some claims against state agencies and officials	Affirmed in part: Eleventh Amendment bars suits against State of Michigan, MDEQ, MDHHS, and Governor Snyder in Boler/Mays for money damages; however Ex Parte Young permits prospective injunctive relief in Mays against Governor Snyder where ongoing violations and prospective relief are properly alleged
Whether appeals may be dismissed on alternative grounds (Rule 12(b)(6), absolute/qualified immunity, respondeat superior)	Plaintiffs: merits defenses not appropriately resolved on this jurisdictional/preemption appeal; factual record needed	Defendants: pleadings fail to state constitutional claims; immunity bars individual defendants; claims merely supervisory/respondeat superior	Not resolved on appeal: Sixth Circuit declined to affirm dismissal on these alternate merits grounds and remanded for district court to address them in the first instance

Key Cases Cited

Middlesex Cty. Sewerage Auth. v. Nat’l Sea Clammers Ass’n, 453 U.S. 1 (1981) (statutory remedial comprehensiveness can show congressional intent to preclude § 1983)
Smith v. Robinson, 468 U.S. 992 (1984) (statute with clear text/legislative history and comprehensive remedies can displace § 1983)
Fitzgerald v. Barnstable Sch. Comm., 555 U.S. 246 (2009) (distinguishes § 1983 preclusion analysis when claim alleges constitutional violation; compare statutory protections and remedial scheme)
City of Rancho Palos Verdes v. Abrams, 544 U.S. 113 (2005) (detailed statutory remedies can indicate Congress intended to preclude § 1983)
Charvat v. E. Ohio Reg’l Wastewater Auth., 246 F.3d 607 (6th Cir. 2001) (SDWA whistleblower provisions did not preclude First Amendment § 1983 claim)
Communities for Equity v. Mich. High Sch. Athletic Ass’n, 459 F.3d 676 (6th Cir. 2006) (congressional intent inquiry must consider whether statute displaced established Fourteenth Amendment rights)
Will v. Mich. Dep’t of State Police, 491 U.S. 58 (1989) (§ 1983 does not abrogate state sovereign immunity)
Ex parte Young, 209 U.S. 123 (1908) (permits prospective injunctive relief against state officials for ongoing federal violations)
Edelman v. Jordan, 415 U.S. 651 (1974) (Ex Parte Young does not permit retroactive monetary relief against the state)
Steel Co. v. Citizens for a Better Env’t, 523 U.S. 83 (1998) (standard for dismissal for lack of subject-matter jurisdiction)
Monell v. N.Y.C. Dep’t of Soc. Servs., 436 U.S. 658 (1978) (no respondeat superior liability under § 1983)
Harlow v. Fitzgerald, 457 U.S. 800 (1982) (qualified immunity standard)