Town of Barnstable v. Berwick
17 F. Supp. 3d 113
D. Mass.2014Background
- Cape Wind plans a 130-turbine wind facility in federal waters of Nantucket Sound, about 16 miles from Nantucket and 5 miles from Cape Cod.
- Massachusetts and Governor Patrick support renewable energy policies; local residents oppose the project.
- Plaintiffs filed Jan 21, 2014 seeking declaratory and injunctive relief against state agencies and parties (Cape Wind, NSTAR) under Rule 19(a).
- GCA and GWSA govern Massachusetts’ renewables procurement; DPU approved Cape Wind-related contracts and NSTAR–Cape Wind pact amid other proceedings.
- DOER intervened in NSTAR–Northeast merger proceedings and later agreed to pursue a PPA with Cape Wind under a settlement; DPU approved the NSTAR–Cape Wind PPA on Nov 26, 2012.
- Plaintiffs allege violations of the dormant Commerce Clause and Supremacy Clause, and sue for relief to void the Cape Wind contract; the court dismisses on Eleventh Amendment sovereign immunity grounds.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether Eleventh Amendment sovereign immunity bars the suit | Plaintiffs seek prospective and retrospective relief against state actors. | State defendants are immune from monetary damages and retroactive relief. | Dismissed based on Eleventh Amendment sovereign immunity. |
| Whether the claims arise under the Supremacy or dormant Commerce Clause with a private §1983 right | §1983 provides a remedy for federal rights; Supremacy/Dormant Clause rights are privately enforceable. | No private federal-rights are created by these clauses here. | No private §1983 rights; claims fail on standing and sovereign immunity grounds. |
| Whether plaintiffs have standing to challenge the DPU/NSTARCape Wind contracts | Standing as affected consumers or market participants. | Plaintiffs lack market participation and taxpayer standing. | No standing; claims fail. |
Key Cases Cited
- Green v. Mansour, 474 U.S. 64 (1985) (Ex parte Young exception supports prospective relief for ongoing federal violations)
- Edelman v. Jordan, 415 U.S. 651 (1974) (retroactive relief against state is barred unless future compliance is ensured)
- Monell v. NYC Dep’t of Soc. Servs., 436 U.S. 658 (1978) (official-capacity suits are against the entity; Eleventh Amendment constraints apply)
- Dugan v. Rank, 372 U.S. 609 (1963) (retroactive relief against state government is barred)
- Muirhead v. Mecham, 427 F.3d 14 (1st Cir.2005) (Eleventh Amendment bars retroactive relief when it burdens the state treasury)
- Golden State Transit Corp. v. City of Los Angeles, 493 U.S. 103 (1989) (Supremacy Clause does not create private §1983 rights; relief must be future-oriented)