Wisconsin v. Illinois

1929 United States Supreme Court case

Wisconsin v. Illinois

Supreme Court of the United States

Argued April 23–24, 1928
Decided January 14, 1929
Full case name| State of Wisconsin v. State of Illinois
Citations| 278 U.S. 367 (more)

49 S. Ct. 163; 73 L. Ed. 426; 1929 U.S. LEXIS 324

Case history
Prior| None, original jurisdiction
Subsequent| 281 U.S. 696 (1929).
Holding
The equitable power of the United States can be used to impose positive action on the states in a situation in which nonaction would result in damage to the interests of other states.
Court membership

Chief Justice
William H. Taft
Associate Justices
Oliver W. Holmes Jr. * Willis Van Devanter
James C. McReynolds * Louis Brandeis
George Sutherland * Pierce Butler
Edward T. Sanford * Harlan F. Stone
Case opinion
Majority| Taft, joined by unanimous
Laws applied
Rivers and Harbors Appropriation Act, 30 Stat. 1121 (1899)

Wisconsin v. Illinois, 278 U.S. 367 (1929), also referred to as the Chicago Sanitary District Case, is an opinion of the Supreme Court of the United States which held that the equitable power of the United States can be used to impose positive action on one state in a situation in which nonaction would result in damage to the interests of other states.[1] Pursuant to Article Three of the United States Constitution, the case was heard under the Supreme Court's original jurisdiction (i.e. it did not come to the Supreme Court from a lower court) because it involved a controversy between two states, Illinois and Wisconsin. Chief Justice William Howard Taft wrote the opinion for a unanimous Court.

## The case[edit]

The city of Chicago increasingly was diverting Great Lakes waters to carry off sewage through a long-established drainage canal, the Chicago Sanitary and Ship Canal. Illinois claimed that these increasing amounts of diverted water were made necessary by Chicago's growth. Wisconsin, however, claimed that the diversion was lowering lake levels, thereby impairing its transportation facilities and abilities.

After exhaustive hearings, a special master was assigned by the Supreme Court of the United States to consider the facts of the case and fix maximum diversion at a point below that necessary for continued utilization of the drainage canal system alone, thereby requiring the construction of sewage disposal works, but the City of Chicago and the State of Illinois procrastinated. The State of Illinois took exception to the special master's findings, and the Supreme Court heard the case en banc over two days in April 1928.

Chief Justice Taft's opinion for the Court finally settled the question of the authority of the United States to intervene to enforce action by a state in such a situation. Taft later wrote, "In deciding the controversy between States, the authority of the Court to enjoin the continued perpetration of the wrong inflicted on the complainants, necessarily embraces the authority to require measures to be taken to end the conditions, within the control of the defendant state, which may stand in the way of the execution of the decree."

The Court entered its decree shortly thereafter.[2]

## References[edit]

1. ^ Wisconsin v. Illinois, 278 U.S. 367 (1929).  This article incorporates public domain material from this U.S government document.
2. ^ Wisconsin v. Illinois, 281 U.S. 696 (1929).

## Further reading[edit]

* James Truslow Adams, Dictionary of American History, New York: Charles Scribner's Sons, 1940

## External links[edit]

* Works related to Wisconsin v. Illinois at Wikisource
* Text of Wisconsin v. Illinois, 278 U.S. 367 (1929) is available from: CourtListener Findlaw Google Scholar Justia Library of Congress

* v
* t
* e

U.S. Supreme Court Article III case law

Federalism

| Abstention|

* Railroad Commission v. Pullman Co. (1941)
* Burford v. Sun Oil Co. (1943)
* Louisiana Power & Light Co. v. City of Thibodaux (1959)
* United Gas Pipe Line Co. v. Ideal Cement Co. (1962)
* England v. Louisiana State Board of Medical Examiners (1964)
* Younger v. Harris (1971)
* Colorado River Water Conservation District v. United States (1976)
* Moses H. Cone Memorial Hospital v. Mercury Construction Corp. (1983)

|

Adequate and independent state ground|

* Murdock v. City of Memphis (1875)
* Seneca Nation of Indians v. Christy (1896)
* Fox Film Corp. v. Muller (1935)
* Harrison v. NAACP (1959)
* Michigan v. Long (1983)

Federal common law|

* United States v. Hudson (1812)
* Swift v. Tyson (1842)
* Black & White Taxicab & Transfer Co. v. Brown & Yellow Taxicab & Transfer Co. (1928)
* Erie Railroad Co. v. Tompkins (1938)
* Hinderlider v. La Plata River & Cherry Creek Ditch Co. (1938)
* Clearfield Trust Co. v. United States (1943)

Rooker–Feldman doctrine|

* Rooker v. Fidelity Trust Co. (1923)
* District of Columbia Court of Appeals v. Feldman (1983)
* Exxon Mobil Corp. v. Saudi Basic Industries Corp. (2005)

Sovereign immunity|

* Little v. Barreme (1804)
* The Schooner Exchange v. M'Faddon (1812)
* United States v. Lee (1882)
* Schillinger v. United States (1894)
* Feres v. United States (1950)
* United States v. Wunderlich (1951)
* Banco Nacional de Cuba v. Sabbatino (1964)
* Santa Clara Pueblo v. Martinez (1978)
* United States v. Stanley (1987)
* Oklahoma Tax Commission v. Citizen Band, Potawatomi Indian Tribe of Oklahoma (1991)
* Saudi Arabia v. Nelson (1993)
* Kiowa Tribe of Oklahoma v. Manufacturing Technologies, Inc. (1998)
* College Savings Bank v. Florida Prepaid Postsecondary Education Expense Board (1999)
* C & L Enterprises, Inc. v. Citizen Band, Potawatomi Indian Tribe of Oklahoma (2001)
* Inyo County v. Paiute-Shoshone Indians of the Bishop Community (2003)
* United States v. White Mountain Apache Tribe (2003)
* Republic of Austria v. Altmann (2004)
* City of Sherrill v. Oneida Indian Nation of New York (2005)
* Dolan v. United States Postal Service (2006)
* Permanent Mission of India v. City of New York (2007)
* Ali v. Federal Bureau of Prisons (2008)
* Samantar v. Yousuf (2010)
* United States v. Bormes (2012)
* Republic of Argentina v. NML Capital, Ltd. (2014)
* OBB Personenverkehr AG v. Sachs (2015)
* Jam v. International Finance Corp. (2019)
* Republic of Sudan v. Harrison (2019)
* Opati v. Republic of Sudan (2020)

Jurisdiction

* Chisholm v. Georgia (1793)
* Marbury v. Madison (1803)
* United States v. More (1805)
* Martin v. Hunter's Lessee (1816)
* American Insurance Co. v. 356 Bales of Cotton (1828)
* Sheldon v. Sill (1850)
* United States v. Jackalow (1862)
* Ex parte Vallandigham (1864)
* Ex parte McCardle (1869)
* United States v. Klein (1871)
* City of St. Louis v. Myers (1885)
* Barrett v. United States (1898)
* Burton v. United States I (1905)
* Burton v. United States II (1906)
* Louisville & Nashville Railroad Co. v. Mottley (1908)
* Muskrat v. United States (1911)
* American Well Works Co. v. Layne & Bowler Co. (1916)
* Smith v. Kansas City Title & Trust Co. (1921)
* Hartsville Oil Mill v. United States (1926)
* Wisconsin v. Illinois (1929)
* Crowell v. Benson (1932)
* Colegrove v. Green (1946)
* Glidden Co. v. Zdanok (1962)
* Oneida Indian Nation of New York v. County of Oneida (1974)
* Arizona v. New Mexico (1976)
* Mt. Healthy City School District Board of Education v. Doyle (1977)
* Northern Pipeline Construction Co. v. Marathon Pipe Line Co. (1982)
* Commodity Futures Trading Commission v. Schor (1986)
* Merrell Dow Pharmaceuticals Inc. v. Thompson (1986)
* Plaut v. Spendthrift Farm, Inc. (1995)
* JPMorgan Chase Bank v. Traffic Stream (BVI) Infrastructure Ltd. (2002)
* Grable & Sons Metal Products, Inc. v. Darue Engineering & Mfg. (2005)
* Bowles v. Russell (2007)
* Patchak v. Zinke (2018)

Justiciability

| Mootness|

* DeFunis v. Odegaard (1974)
* Campbell-Ewald Co. v. Gomez (2016)
* Uzuegbunam v. Preczewski (2021)
* Acheson Hotels, LLC v. Laufer (2023)

|

Political question|

* Baker v. Carr (1962)
* Goldwater v. Carter (1979)
* Nixon v. United States (1993)

Ripeness|

* Poe v. Ullman (1961)
* Toilet Goods Ass'n, Inc. v. Gardner (1967)
* Laird v. Tatum (1972)
* Williamson County Regional Planning Commission v. Hamilton Bank of Johnson City (1985)
* Trump v. New York (2020)

Standing|

* Bailiff v. Tipping (1805)
* Fairchild v. Hughes (1922)
* Massachusetts v. Mellon (1923)
* Ex parte Levitt (1937)
* Altvater v. Freeman (1943)
* Flast v. Cohen (1968)
* Sierra Club v. Morton (1972)
* United States v. Students Challenging Regulatory Agency Procedures (1973)
* Schlesinger v. Reservists Committee to Stop the War (1974)
* Warth v. Seldin (1975)
* Illinois Brick Co. v. Illinois (1977)
* Pfizer Inc. v. Government of India (1978)
* Valley Forge Christian College v. Americans United for Separation of Church & State (1982)
* City of Los Angeles v. Lyons (1983)
* Allen v. Wright (1984)
* Diamond v. Charles (1986)
* Lujan v. Defenders of Wildlife (1992)
* Raines v. Byrd (1997)
* FEC v. Akins (1998)
* Friends of the Earth, Inc. v. Laidlaw Environmental Services, Inc. (2000)
* DaimlerChrysler Corp. v. Cuno (2006)
* Hein v. Freedom From Religion Foundation (2007)
* Massachusetts v. Environmental Protection Agency (2007)
* Arizona Christian School Tuition Organization v. Winn (2011)
* Bond v. United States (2011)
* Clapper v. Amnesty International USA (2013)
* Spokeo, Inc. v. Robins (2016)
* Texas v. Pennsylvania (2020)
* Trump v. New York (2020)
* Uzuegbunam v. Preczewski (2021)
* TransUnion LLC v. Ramirez (2021)
* Biden v. Nebraska (2023)

Others|

* Hayburn's Case (1792)
* County of Oneida v. Oneida Indian Nation of New York State (1985)
* Davis v. Bandemer (1986)
* Vieth v. Jubelirer (2004)
* Rucho v. Common Cause / Benisek v. Lamone (2019)

Treason

* Ex parte Bollman (1807)
* United States v. Burr (1807)
* Cramer v. United States (1945)

Others

* Stuart v. Laird (1803)
* Osborn v. Bank of the United States (1824)
* Forrester v. White (1988)
* Mistretta v. United States (1989)
* Peretz v. United States (1991)
* United States v. Hatter (2001)
* Stern v. Marshall (2011)
* Bank Markazi v. Peterson (2016)

This article related to the Supreme Court of the United States is a stub. You can help Wikipedia by expanding it.

|

* v
* t
* e

*[v]: View this template
*[t]: Discuss this template
*[e]: Edit this template