406 U.S. 91, 103 (1972)
In 1972 the State of Illinois filed a motion for leave to file a bill of complaint in the Supreme Court invoking its original jurisdiction against four Wisconsin cities, the Sewerage Commission of the City of Milwaukee, and the Metropolitan Sewerage Commission of the County of Milwaukee.1 The complaint alleged that these defendants discharge some 200 million gallons of raw or inadequately treated sewage and other waste materials daily into Lake Michigan, an interstate body of water.2 Illinois further alleged that it and its subdivisions prohibit and prevent such discharges while the defendants do not, and it asked the Court to abate the resulting public nuisance.3
No proceedings had taken place in any lower court because Illinois sought to commence the action directly before the Supreme Court.4 Illinois argued that the named agencies are instrumentalities of Wisconsin and that the suit is therefore effectively against the State of Wisconsin, which could not be brought in any other forum.5 The defendants are public corporations whose existence and operations are controlled by Wisconsin.6
Congress has enacted statutes addressing pollution of interstate and navigable waters, including the Rivers and Harbors Act of March 3, 1899, the Federal Water Pollution Control Act, and the National Environmental Policy Act of 1969.7 The Federal Water Pollution Control Act declares it federal policy to recognize the primary responsibilities of the States in preventing and controlling water pollution while also providing for federal enforcement actions and water-quality standards.8
Whether the Supreme Court's original jurisdiction is mandatory in a suit brought by one State against political subdivisions of another State for pollution of an interstate body of water?9
The Supreme Court construes its original jurisdiction under Article III, § 2, cl. 2 and 28 U.S.C. § 1251(a)(1) to be obligatory only in appropriate cases.10 The determination takes into account the seriousness and dignity of the claim and the availability of another forum where there is jurisdiction over the named parties, where the issues tendered may be litigated, and where appropriate relief may be had.11
No. Illinois filed a motion for leave to file a bill of complaint in the Supreme Court against four Wisconsin cities, the Sewerage Commission of the City of Milwaukee, and the Metropolitan Sewerage Commission of the County of Milwaukee, alleging daily discharge of 200 million gallons of raw or inadequately treated sewage into Lake Michigan.12 The named defendants are public corporations whose existence and operations are wholly within the control of Wisconsin, yet they qualify as citizens of Wisconsin for diversity purposes under settled precedent.13 Because these political subdivisions may be sued by Illinois in federal district court, another adequate forum exists.14
The Supreme Court's original jurisdiction is not mandatory in this controversy.15
Whether the term 'States' in 28 U.S.C. § 1251(a)(1) includes political subdivisions of States for purposes of exclusive original jurisdiction?16
No. The Sewerage Commission of the City of Milwaukee and the Metropolitan Sewerage Commission of the County of Milwaukee are statutory public corporations controlled by Wisconsin.20 They are treated as citizens of Wisconsin rather than as the State itself.21 Precedent establishes that political subdivisions are citizens for diversity purposes.22 This makes it jurisdictionally irrelevant whether they appear as plaintiffs or defendants in district court.23 Consequently, the exclusive original jurisdiction provision does not encompass these entities.24
The term 'States' in 28 U.S.C. § 1251(a)(1) does not include political subdivisions of States.
Whether federal district courts have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1331(a) over a State's claim to abate pollution of interstate waters founded on federal common law?25
Yes. Illinois's claim seeks abatement of a public nuisance arising from pollution of Lake Michigan, an interstate body of water.29 Federal common law governs such claims, as recognized in decisions applying federal law to equitable apportionment of interstate waters and to public nuisances affecting quasi-sovereign interests.30 The amount in controversy exceeds the jurisdictional threshold because of the considerable interests in the purity of interstate waters.31
A State may bring the action in district court under the holding of Ames v. Kansas.32
Federal district courts have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1331(a) over a State's claim to abate pollution of interstate waters founded on federal common law.33
Whether a State may invoke 28 U.S.C. § 1331(a) to bring suit in federal district court for abatement of a public nuisance arising from water pollution?34
A State may invoke 28 U.S.C. § 1331(a) to bring suit in federal district court for abatement of a public nuisance arising from water pollution.35 Federal common law supplies the rule of decision for such interstate disputes.36 The original jurisdiction of the Supreme Court is not exclusive when the defendants are not other States.37
Yes. Illinois alleges that the Wisconsin defendants discharge inadequately treated sewage into Lake Michigan, creating a public nuisance that endangers health and welfare.38 Federal common law recognizes a State's quasi-sovereign interest in the purity of interstate waters and authorizes equitable relief to abate such nuisances.39 The Federal Water Pollution Control Act does not preempt this federal common-law remedy.40 Therefore the district court is an available forum.41
A State may invoke 28 U.S.C. § 1331(a) to bring suit in federal district court for abatement of a public nuisance arising from water pollution.