Wisconsin v. Illinois
Headline: Court appoints a Special Master to investigate untreated sewage in the Illinois Waterway, assess health risks to nearby communities, and report on fixes that avoid increasing water taken from Lake Michigan.
Holding:
- Creates a fast independent investigation of sewage and local health risks.
- Gives the investigator power to subpoena witnesses and take sworn testimony.
- Costs for the inquiry and printed report will be charged to the parties.
Summary
Background
A group of States that earlier complained asked the Court to consider a petition from the State of Illinois to temporarily modify a prior Court decree. The dispute centers on untreated sewage being introduced into the Illinois Waterway and whether that pollution affects nearby communities’ health. The Court had previously issued an order on January 29, 1940, requiring the States to show cause why Illinois’s request should not be granted.
Reasoning
The Court ordered that Illinois’s petition and the complaining States’ returns be referred to Monte M. Lemann as Special Master. He is directed to make a summary inquiry and quickly report on the actual condition of the Illinois Waterway because of untreated sewage, whether that condition is a real danger to the health of inhabitants of the complaining communities, and what remedial or improving measures Illinois could take without increasing diversion of water from Lake Michigan. The Special Master may hire stenographic and clerical help, set times and places for evidence, issue subpoenas, select witnesses, and administer oaths. When the report is filed it will be printed. The Special Master will be allowed actual expenses and reasonable compensation later fixed by the Court, and those costs and the printing will be charged to the parties as the Court directs. If the appointment is not accepted or the place becomes vacant during recess, the Chief Justice may name another.
Real world impact
The immediate effect is an official, court-ordered fact-finding inquiry into pollution and health risks for nearby residents. The report could lead to remedies but does not itself change water-diversion rules. Parties should expect to share investigation costs. The referral is procedural and not a final ruling on the merits.
Ask about this case
Ask questions about the entire case, including all opinions (majority, concurrences, dissents).
What was the Court's main decision and reasoning?
How did the dissenting opinions differ from the majority?
What are the practical implications of this ruling?