Michigan v. United States Army Corps of Engineers
2011 U.S. App. LEXIS 17714
| 7th Cir. | 2011Background
- CAWS connects Lake Michigan to Mississippi basins through a manmade waterway operated by the Corps and the Metropolitan Water Reclamation District.
- Plaintiffs (Michigan, Minnesota, Ohio, Pennsylvania, Wisconsin) sue for declaratory and injunctive relief to stop invasive carp from entering the Great Lakes; Grand Traverse Band intervenes for plaintiffs; City of Chicago and others intervene for defendants.
- The district court denied a preliminary injunction; the Seventh Circuit reviews for abuse of discretion and weighs likelihood of success, irreparable harm, balance of harms, and public interest.
- Court analyzes federal common-law public nuisance, APA § 702 waiver, and displacement by congressional action as the basis for injunctive relief against federal and local defendants.
- Court emphasizes ongoing federal and local efforts (barriers, GLMRIS, monitoring) to stop carp, affecting the likelihood of granting interim relief.
- Ruling: the denial of preliminary relief is affirmed, given substantial ongoing regulatory efforts and weighing harms; potential for future reconsideration if new information arises.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Does federal common-law public nuisance apply to CAWS harms? | States argue nuisance applies to CAWS operation. | Defendants contend no federal nuisance against federal agency. | Yes, federal nuisance may apply at this stage. |
| Does APA §702 waive sovereign immunity for declaratory/injunctive relief on a federal common-law nuisance claim? | APA §702 waives immunity for nonstatutory claims against agencies. | Sovereign immunity forecloses relief absent explicit waiver. | §702 waives immunity; plaintiff claims may proceed. |
| Has Congress displaced federal common-law nuisance with statutes addressing invasive carp? | Displacement occurs only with comprehensive statutes; current actions insufficient. | Congress has displaced the field through regulatory frameworks. | Displacement not shown; common law claim remains viable at this stage. |
| Was injunctive relief appropriate given the balance of harms and ongoing agency action? | Relief needed to prevent imminent harm from carp invasion. | Relief would hinder agencies and impose substantial costs. | No; balance of harms favors defendants under current record. |
Key Cases Cited
- Missouri v. Illinois, 200 U.S. 496 (1906) (interstate nuisance limits; federal suit viable)
- Tennessee Copper Co. v. Tennessee Valley Authority, 206 U.S. 230 (1907) (federal common law addressing nuisances in federal-state context)
- Milwaukee I, 406 U.S. 91 (1972) (federal common law of nuisance; displacement before comprehensive regulation)
- Milwaukee II, 451 U.S. 304 (1981) (displacement by comprehensive regulatory program in federal water pollution)
- American Electric Power Co. v. Connecticut, 131 S. Ct. 2527 (2011) (federal regulatory framework displacement of federal common law)