Legal Document

406 U.S. 498 92 Supreme Court Reporter 1749 32 United States Reports Lawyer’s Edition 2d Series KF101.8 U54 257 LAKE CARRIERS' ASSOCIATION et al., Appellants,v.Ralph Atlantic MacMULLAN al. Number 71-422. Argued March 22 and 23, 1972. Decided May 30, Although Michigan authorities indicated that they would not prosecute under Watercraft Pollution Control Act of 1970 until adequate land-based pump-out facilities were available to service vessels equipped with sewage storage devices, where the had sought obtain compliance as soon possible, and, avoid prosecution, owners operators Great Lakes bulk cargo be required install devices retain on board available, there was an "actual controversy" validity Act, within Declaratory Judgment ripe for decision complaint challenging should have been dismissed theory advisory opinion sought. 28 Code Annotated KF65 U5 § 2201; M.C.L.A. §§ 323.331 seq., 323.333. Syllabus Michigan's 1970, appellees maintain, prohibits discharge sewage, whether treated or untreated, in waters requires marine toilets devices. Appellants, Lake Carriers' Association members owning operating vessels, filed a declaratory injunctive relief, contending unduly burdens interstate foreign commerce; contravenes uniform maritime law; violates due process equal protection requirements; is invalid Supremacy Clause primarily because conflict pre-emption by Federal Water amended Quality Improvement 1970. That law appears contemplate control after appropriate federal standards issued through on-board treatment before disposal navigable waters, unless Administrator Environmental Protection Agency provides special application complete prohibition designated areas. A three-judge District lack justiciable controversy. The court also found 'compelling reasons abstain from consideration matter its present posture'—the attitude authorities, who are threatening criminal prosecution but seeking industry cooperation; availability relief courts; possibility absence existing between requirements other state laws; publication proposed might consider interpreting enforcing law. Held: 1. presents 'actual controversy' meaning obligation statute presently effective fact. Pp. 506-508. 2. Abstention permissible "only narrowly limited 'special circumstances,' " Zwickler versus Koota, 389 241, 248, 88 391, 395, 19 444 (1967), justifying "the delay expense which abstention doctrine inevitably gives rise." England Louisiana State Board Medical Examiners, 375 411, 418, 84 461, 466, 11 440 (1964). Those circumstances do include majority grounds given Court. 509-510. (a) immediate threat reason abstention. In pending proceeding, exercise jurisdiction ordinarily if conditions met. Younger Harris, 401 37, 91 746, 27 669 (1971), Samuels Mackell, 66, 764, 688 distinguished. 509—510. (b) courts claims supra, U.S., at S.Ct., 395. Pacific KF135 P2 510. (c) Just asserted laws diminish immediacy reality appellants' grievance, call 3. statute, however, unclear particulars go foundation grievance has yet construed any court. this circumstance authoritative resolution those ambiguities sufficiently likely "avoid modify (federal) constitutional (questions)," 249, 396, appellants raise warrant abstention, particularly view countervailing considerations compelling prior decisions. 510-513. 336 F.Supp. vacated remanded. Scott Haw. Hawai‘i KFH45 A2 Elder, Cleveland, Ohio, appellants. Robert Derengoski, Lansing, Mich., appellees. Mr. Justice BRENNAN delivered 1 This appeal judgment Court, convened KF62 2281, 2284, dismissing Mich.Comp.Laws Ann. seq. (Supp.1971), declared enforcement enjoined. 248 (1971). We noted probable jurisdiction, 404 982, 450, 30 366 affirmed Court's determination proceedings. 2 January 1, 1971, pertinent part: 3 "Sec. (1) person (defined 2(i) mean "an individual, partnership, firm, corporation, association entity") shall place, throw, deposit, cause discharged into onto state, . 2(d) 'all human body wastes, untreated") liquid solid materials render water unsightly, noxious otherwise unwholesome so detrimental public health welfare enjoyment recreational purposes. 4 "(2) It unlawful discharge, dump, throw deposit recreational, domestic watercraft used pleasure purpose carrying passengers, engaged commerce state. 5 4. Any operated moored registered another pollution device approved may (State Resources Commission Department Natural Resources) operate 6 owning, concerned operation, navigation management 2(g) "foreign upon state" well "privately owned watercraft" having toilet own, use permit such following devices: 7 "(a) holding tank self-contained will all produced subsequent dockside onshore collection facilities. 8 "(b) An incinerating reduce ash watercraft. disposed manner preclude pollution. 9 8. Commercial docks wharfs designed receiving loading and/or freight commercial must furnish facilities, determined necessary, prescribed commission, accommodate heads galleys (of) utilize wharfs. 10 10. commission promulgate rules necessary convenient out duties powers conferred act. 11. provision act guilty misdemeanor fined more than $500.00. To enforceable, rule flexibility owner, rule, able maintain safety comply regulations." 12 Appellees—the Attorney General, Director, Executive Secretary—read these provisions prohibiting requiring 13 Appellants—the individual own federally enrolled licensed vessels—challenge variety grounds. They urge beyond State's police power places undue burden commerce, impermissibly interferes law, denies them laws, unconstitutionally vague. contend conflicts pre-empted primarily1 therefore Clause. Under Agency2 directed "(a)s April 3, (to) performance sanitation prevent untreated inadequately new except installed facilities." Statutes-at-Large 100, 33 1163(b)(1).3 These standards, now issued,4 become two years promulgation five promulgation. 101, 1163(c)(1). Thereafter, "no adopt enforce regulation respect design, manufacture, installation vessel subject section." Id., 1163(f). However, "(u)pon State, Secretary determines applicable quality require prohibition, he completely prohibit (whether not) apply." Ibid. Thus, onboard 14 below did reach merits ground controversy precludes entry matter." F.Supp., 253.5 "An overview factual situation presented evidence case," said "compels one conclusion: plaintiffs here opinion. ." "compelling posture," ibid.—namely, seek cooperation implementation program instigated, nor does it appear, threatened prosecutions," id., 252;6 law;7 laws;8 considered interpretation statute.9 15 Appellants their 2201, decision. agree. test applied, course, familiar stated Maryland Casualty company Coal & Oil Co., 312 270, 273, 61 510, 512, 85 L.Ed. 826 (1941): "Basically, question each case substantial controversy, parties adverse legal interests, sufficient issuance judgment." Compare, e.g., ibid., with, Golden Zwickler, 394 103, 89 956, 113 (1969). Since, concede,10 preempted when effective, gist that, according unnecessary once authorizing (3) may, event, regulations date standards. concerns depend, contrary what considered, probability authorize implement inconsistent Michigan. depend instead only effectiveness fact For obligation, itself makes attack live attempt See, Southern Arizona ex rel. Sullivan, 325 761, 65 1515, 1915 (1945) (existing conflicting laws). 16 Regarding statutory plurality Poe Ullman, 367 497, 508, 81 1752, 1758, 989 (1961), exist "compliance (challenged) statutes uncoerced risk enforcement." That, case. landbased basis future possible. colloquy occurred oral argument instructive, Tr. Oral Arg. 34-35: 17 "(Appellees): leadtime construction erection no available. 18 "Q. But you're insisting carriers get ready and— Yes, sir. 20 "Q.—because you wait stations begin (servicing) tanks, then great delay? 21 Oh, yes, So rather concrete confrontation now, don't you? 23 sir, we do. 24 prepared, which, turn, means promptly devices.11 circumstance, coerced enforcement, both real. Pierce Society Sisters, 268 45 571, 69 1070 (1925); City Altus, Oklahoma Carr, 255 828, aff'd per curiam, 385 35, 87 240, 34 (1966). See generally, Comment, 62 Col.L.Rev. 106 (1962).12 25 next argue erred abstaining deciding complaint.13 agree proper hold was, nevertheless, suggested fully articulated "judge-made ., first fashioned 1941 Railroad Texas Pullman 496, 643, 971 (that) sanctions excape (from decision) "special circumstances," Propper Clark, 337 472, 492, 93 1480, 1333, 1344." relied fall category. First, against reaching complaint. held apart "extraordinary circumstance," enjoin declare brought. decisions premised equity practice comity our system little force proceeding. circumstances, generally Perez Ledesma, 82, 93, 674, 681, 701 (1971) (separate opinion). 26 Similarly, wholly beside point. said: "In thus (establishing of) judicial power, Congress imposed duty levels judiciary give suitor's choice forum hearing his claims. Plainly, escape merely solemn responsibility, equally courts, ". guard, enforce, protect every right granted secured constitution .," Robb Connolly, 111 624, 637, 544, 542, 551.' Askew Hargrave, 476, 856, 196 forbid even immaterial. 29 last factor Court—the does, point toward circumstances' permitting paradigm arises challenged susceptible 'a question. Harrison NAACP, 360 167, 79 1025, 1152. Compare Baggett Bullitt, 377 360, 1316, 377.' 396. More fully, explained: "Where dependent upon, materially altered by, uncertain issue order friction federal-state relations, interference important functions, tentative questions premature adjudication. contemplates deference adjudication made uncertain." Harman Forssenius, 380 528, 534, 1177, 1182, 50 (1965). 31 precisely here. court, themselves suggest attacking vagueness, terms far clear grievance. indeed assertion proscribes waters. Section 3(2) "(i)t (commerce) 4(2) devices.14 Yet 3(1) seemingly emitting "which (renders) purposes." Moreover, "(t)o (of Act) (presumably promulgated thereunder) demonstrated concern flexible accord know, how light Act15 constraints Constitution.16 satisfied significantly 537, 1183; 378—379, 1326 1327, affirming abstain, we, intimate do, vacate remand directions institution proceedings courts. 244 n. 4, 393. ordered. Vacated 35 BLACKMUN, whom REHNQUIST joins, concurring result. 36 N Dec. Immigration Nationality Decisions actual properly abstained. concur result join 37 POWELL, THE CHIEF JUSTICE dissenting. 38 assigned complaint: (i) warranting judgment; (ii) today affirms despite rejecting virtually premises based. 39 concludes, below, stated. concluded 'abstention Court.' Nevertheless, general disagreement trial major issues, affirmed. 40 As seems me central thrust reasoning (with agree) reversal affirmance decision, file dissent. 41 There serious involving posing Carriers expenditure sums money antipollution equipment compatible admittedly time pre-emptive. classic (1941). states, 'compliance law) real.' 42 On second question, finally finds construe way questions. slender reed rest judgment. ambiguous deem most critical, namely, considerable applicable. unequivocal, providing with: 43 44 pollution." flatly waters.1 sections unmistakably express favor retention incineration aboard ships waters.2 views affording some room interpretation.3 Yet, context entire statement environmental persons (as defined), expressing overall objective section can hardly contradict specific relate Indeed, read "designed others class pouring filth, treated, Lakes." (Emphasis supplied.) Brief Appellees 16.4 46 raised expressed) litigants. relying claims." (1967). remain posture, whatever placed congressional intent preempt multiple regulatory schemes are, large measure, independent particular Act. 47 spoken previously relegation litigation, issues affecting ship delay, (including State), prolonging uncertainty exists. 48 reverse direct proceed merits. Steamboat Inspection Acts Feb. 28, 1871, 440, 27, 1936, 49 1380, amended, 361 amicus curiae, moreover, presses contention, complaint, States-Canadian Boundary Waters Treaty 1909, 2448, enters domain affairs constitutionally reserved National Government. Dominion Marine curiae. authority administer originally lodged Interior, transferred Reorganization Plan set Appendix Title Code. "Sewage" defined "human wastes receptacles intended receive wastes." 1163(a)(6). notice published 12, 1971. Fed.Reg. 8739. "(w)ith regard pre-emption, Swift Wickham, 382 111, 86 258, 194 (1965), cases purview three judge court." 253. correctly reinstating Wickham long nonfrivolous claim constitutes warrants, allegations irreparable harm, relief. 122 17, 125, 264, 266. explicit Florida Lime Avocado Growers, Incorporated Jacobsen, 362 73, 80-81, 80 568, 573-574, 568 (1960), reaffirming cases. satisfies controversies. Since hold, infra, exists over claims, including issues. refrained 507—508. After here, Solicitor General informed us "that local officials Cheboygan County, Michigan, 'ticketed' Coast Guard Captain discharging "to assure depart representations Court," "taking steps quash charge stay hand until" 1163(f) no-discharge initial 1163(b) (1). 8739-8740. Administrator's narrow could encompass throughout find, immaterial answered need decide dealing critically different various respects. too, address, since presence irrelevant. supra. took equivocal position see 36-39, expressly concession, 255, repeated concession opposing jurisdictional statement. Support Motion Dismiss Affirm occurs least effective. 1163(f), quoted part 503—504. stressed '(t)he mechanical accomplishment.' 35. reinforces conclusion must, quickly statute. coming conclusion, heavily Public Serv. Comm. Wycoff 344 237, 73 236, 97 291 (1952), inappropriate behalf carrier intrastate transportation constituted commerce. reliance misplaced. Utilities California States, 355 538-539, 78 446, 470 (1958), 'where guard possibility", (344 U.S.), 244, 236 assume jurisdiction." Here, California, already arisen, "(t)he .." 539, 450. entirely separate granting (1969); apply watercraft, though textually clear. applies 'recreational' while expansive definition 'watercraft' 2(g)—could similarly 4(1), governs 'pleasure watercraft.' fit interpret arguments latter regard, see, Government Civic Employees, etc. Windsor, 353 364, 77 838, 894 (1957). "It garbage, litter, oil state." 3(2). By defining "sewage" (emphasis supplied), further permitted. "A 3(1). Nor affords "shall owner marine, language safety, regulations. refer relating difficult believe single sentence nullify affirmative altogether sewage.

Classification Label: 7