Laurie Freeman, Sharon Mockmore, Beccy Boysel, Gary D. Boysel, Linda L. Goreham, Gary R. Goreham, Kelcey Brackett, and Bobbie Lynn Weatherman v. Grain Processing Corporation
848 N.W.2d 58
| Iowa | 2014Background
- Eight Muscatine, Iowa residents sued Grain Processing Corporation (GPC), alleging odors and pollutants from its corn wet‑milling plant caused private nuisance, statutory nuisance (Iowa Code ch. 657), negligence, and trespass to their nearby properties and sought class certification, damages, punitive relief, and injunctive relief.
- GPC moved for summary judgment arguing: (1) federal preemption under the Clean Air Act (CAA); (2) preemption under Iowa Code ch. 455B (state emissions statute); and (3) the claims present a nonjusticiable political question.
- The district court granted summary judgment for GPC on all three grounds, relying in part on federal decisions (including AEP) and district/circuit authority holding the CAA displaces federal and/or state common‑law claims; plaintiffs appealed.
- The Iowa Supreme Court reviewed de novo, surveyed the history and differences between common law remedies (property‑specific damages/remedies) and the CAA’s cooperative federal regulatory scheme, and examined preemption doctrines and the political‑question doctrine.
- The court held plaintiffs’ source‑state common‑law claims were not impliedly preempted by the CAA or by Iowa Code ch. 455B, and that the political question doctrine did not bar adjudication; it reversed summary judgment and remanded.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether the CAA impliedly preempts source‑state common‑law claims (nuisance, trespass, negligence) | CAA contains savings/retention clauses ("any measures", citizens' rights, retention of state authority) showing Congress left states free to impose stricter standards and preserve common law; Ouellette supports source‑state claims. | CAA (and AEP) created a comprehensive federal scheme displacing federal common law and, by extension or necessity, preempting state common law to avoid interference with federal/state regulatory balance and permitting; field or conflict preemption applies. | CAA does not categorically preempt source‑state common‑law claims here; source‑state claims may proceed; displacement of federal common law differs from preemption of state law. |
| Whether Iowa Code ch. 455B preempts statutory nuisance (ch. 657) and common‑law claims | Iowa’s 455B contains a citizens’‑rights savings clause; absent express repeal, preemption of traditional common‑law remedies is not "imperatively required." Chapter 657 supplements, not supplants, common law. | Chapter 455B’s comprehensive regulatory scheme and permitting process could conflict with court‑ordered remedies and thus impliedly preempt or make common law remedies inconsistent. | Chapter 455B does not impliedly repeal or preempt chapter 657 or common‑law nuisance/tort claims; potential conflicts with injunctive relief are speculative and premature. |
| Whether the political question doctrine bars the suit | Tort suits for damages/injunction are justiciable; Baker factors do not compel dismissal; courts have judicially manageable standards for tort claims even if complex. | Determinations require policy balancing (economic vs. environmental) better left to political branches; adjudication risks collateral attack on regulatory scheme. | Political‑question doctrine does not apply. No textually demonstrable constitutional commitment; manageable legal standards exist for tort adjudication; damages claims are particularly justiciable. |
| Whether summary judgment was appropriate | Plaintiffs contended disputed factual issues and lawfulness of claims precluded summary judgment. | GPC argued legal preemption/political‑question grounds entitled it to judgment as a matter of law. | Summary judgment for GPC reversed; legal preemption and political‑question defenses insufficient as a matter of law to dispose of the claims. |
Key Cases Cited
- Illinois v. City of Milwaukee, 451 U.S. 304 (1981) (Clean Water Act displaced federal common law for water pollution; left open state common law against in‑state sources)
- International Paper Co. v. Ouellette, 479 U.S. 481 (1987) (CWA preempted affected‑state law against out‑of‑state dischargers; source‑state law remained available)
- American Electric Power Co. v. Connecticut, 564 U.S. 410 (2011) (CAA displaces federal common‑law nuisance claims concerning air pollutants)
- Massachusetts v. EPA, 549 U.S. 497 (2007) (EPA authority to regulate greenhouse gases under the CAA)
- Tenn. Valley Auth. v. Hill/TVA line of authority (discussed as), 615 F.3d 291 (4th Cir. 2010) (court enjoined emissions‑control decisions; illustrates conflict‑preemption concerns for sweeping injunctive relief)
- Bell v. Cheswick Generating Station (Bell II), 734 F.3d 188 (3d Cir. 2013) (held CAA did not preempt source‑state common‑law tort claims)
- In re Methyl Tertiary Butyl Ether Prods. Liab. Litig., 725 F.3d 65 (2d Cir. 2013) (similar conclusion that source‑state common‑law claims are not preempted)