No. 17- In the Supreme Court of the United States ______________ CITY OF FLINT, ET AL., Petitioners, v. BEATRICE BOLER, ET AL., Respondents. ______________________ CITY OF FLINT, ET AL., Petitioners, v. MELISSA MAYS, ET AL., Respondents. ______________________ On Petition for a Writ of Certiorari to the United States Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit ______________________ PETITION FOR A WRIT OF CERTIORARI ______________________ WILLIAM Y. KIM* (BAR FREDERICK A. BERG, JR. #303932) SHELDON H. KLEIN Assistant City Attorney JOSEPH E. RICHOTTE FLINT LAW DEPARTMENT BUTZEL LONG, P.C. 1101 S. Saginaw St. 150 W. Jefferson Ave. Flint, Mich. 48502 Detroit, Mich. 48226 (810) 766-7146 (313) 225-7000 [email protected] [email protected] [email protected] Attorney for City of Flint [email protected] and Dayne Walling *COUNSEL OF RECORD Attorneys for City of Flint (Additional counsel listed on the reverse of this cover) 2017 ! Bachman Legal Printing ! (612) 339-9518 ! 1-800-715-3582 ! Fax (612) 337-8053 BRETT T. MEYER DAVID W. MEYERS O’NEIL, WALLACE, & DOYLE, P.C. LAW OFFICE OF 300 St. Andrews Rd. EDWARD A. ZEINEH Suite 302 2800 E. River Ave., Suite B. Saginaw, MI 48605 Lansing, MI 48912 (989) 790-0960 (517) 292-7000 [email protected] [email protected] Attorney for Attorney for Michael Glasgow Daugherty Johnson TODD PERKINS BARRY A. WOLF PERKINS LAW GROUP LAW OFFICE OF 615 W. Griswold Ste. 400 BARRY A. WOLF, PLLC Detroit, MI 48226 503 S. Saginaw St. (313) 964-1702 Suite 1410 [email protected] Flint, MI 48502 (810) 762-1084 [email protected] Attorney for Attorney for Darnell Earley Gerald Ambrose ALEXANDER S. RUSEK WHITE LAW PLLC 2549 Jolly Rd., Suite 340 Okemos, MI 48664 (517) 316-1195 [email protected] Attorney for Howard Croft Date: December 20, 2017 QUESTIONS PRESENTED This Court has repeatedly held, most recently in Fitzgerald v. Barnstable School Committee, 555 U.!S. 246 (2009), that Congressional intent to preclude claims under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 can be inferred from the existence of a comprehensive statutory remedial scheme. Congress enacted the Safe Drinking Water Act (“SDWA”) to “assure that the public is provided with safe drinking water.” Toward that end, the SDWA includes extensive remedial provisions, including allowing “citizen suits” to remedy violations. Further, pursuant to Congressional mandate in the SDWA, the EPA has adopted exhaustive regulations, known as the “Lead and Copper Rule,” to protect the public from the dangers of lead in drinking water. Plaintiffs, residents and businesses in Flint, Michigan, claim that their constitutional rights were violated by the provision of drinking water with excessive lead levels. They seek relief under 42 USC § 1983. The district court, following a holding from the First Circuit Court of Appeals, concluded that § 1983 claims were precluded by the SDWA’s remedial scheme. The court of appeals disagreed. The heart of this disagreement concerned the proper interpretation of Fitzgerald, supra¸ which case has also led to circuit splits with respect to the preclusive effect of other statutes. The questions presented are: (1)! Did Congress, when it enacted the SDWA to protect the safety of drinking water and directed the issuance of regulations to protect against the danger of lead, intend to allow Plaintiffs to disregard the SDWA’s carefully structured and i comprehensive remedial scheme and instead allow for recovery under § 1983? (2)! Under Fitzgerald, is the purpose of the statute and nature of the remedial scheme a sufficient basis to infer congressional intent to preempt § 1983 claims based on alleged constitutional violations? ii PARTIES TO THE PROCEEDING This Petition relates to two cases consolidated for appeal before the Sixth Circuit: Boler v. Earley, No. 16-1684, and Mays v. Snyder, No. 17-1144. Boler v. Earley Petitioners are Defendants City of Flint, Darnell Earley, Gerald Ambrose and Dayne Walling. The City is a Michigan municipality. At all times relevant to this case, the City was governed by State-appointed emergency financial managers (“EMs”). Messrs. Earley and Ambrose are former EMs who held office sequentially during much of the time at issue. Mr. Walling is the former Mayor of Flint. Respondents are Plaintiffs Beatrice Boler, Edwin Anderson, Allina Anderson, and Epco Sales, LLC. Other Defendants are: Governor Rick Snyder, the State of Michigan, the State of Michigan’s Department of Environmental Quality (MDEQ), and the State of Michigan’s Department of Health and Human Services (MDHHS). Mays v. Snyder Petitioners are Defendants City of Flint, Darnell Earley, Gerald Ambrose, Dayne Walling, Howard Croft, Michael Glasgow, and Daugherty Johnson. Messrs. Croft, Glasgow, and Johnson are former City employees involved in the City’s water plant operations. Respondents are Plaintiffs Melissa Mays, Michael Mays, Jacqueline Pemberton, Keith John Pemberton, Elnora Carthan, and Rhonda Kelso. iii Other Defendants are: Governor Rick Snyder, the State of Michigan, Daniel Wyant, Liane Shekter Smith, Adam Rosenthal, Stephen Busch, Patrick Cook, Michael Prysby, Bradley Wurfel, Nick Lyon, Andy Dillon, Ed Kurtz, and Jeff Wright. iv TABLE OF CONTENTS QUESTIONS PRESENTED……………………………..i PARTIES TO THE PROCEEDING………………….. iii TABLE OF CONTENTS…………………………………v TABLE OF AUTHORITIES…………………………… vi PETITION FOR A WRIT OF CERTIORARI…………1 OPINIONS BELOW……………………………………...1 JURISDICTION…………………………………………..1 STATUTES INVOLVED………………………………...1 INTRODUCTION…………………………………………2 STATEMENT OF THE CASE…………………………. 7 1. The Statutory Framework: The SDWA and the Lead and Copper Rule……………………………7 2. Plaintiffs’ Claims………………………………….9 3. District Court Proceedings…………………….10 4. The Sixth Circuit’s Decision…………………...11 REASONS TO GRANT THE PETITION 1. The First and Sixth Circuits are split on whether the SDWA precludes constitutional claims under § 1983……………………………. 14 2. The Mattoon–Boler split highlights recurring circuit splits on how to apply Fitzgerald to questions of statutory preclusion of constitutional claims under § 1983………….. 18 CONCLUSION…………………………………………..21 v TABLE OF AUTHORITIES Cases Boler v. Earley, 2016 WL 157327 (E.D. Mich. 2016)………………….1 Boler v. Early, 865 F.!3d 391 (CA6 2017)……… passim Brown v. General Services Administration, 425 U.!S. 820 (1976)…………………………………..15 City of Rancho Palos Verdes v. Abrams, 544 U.!S. 113 (2005)……………………………. passim Fitzgerald v. Barnstable School Committee, 555 U.!S. 246 (2009)……………………………. passim Gholson v. Benham, 2015 WL 2403594 (ED Va. 2015)………………….. 19 Harding-Wright v. District of Columbia Water, 2016 WL 4211773 (D.D.C., 2016) ……..……………………7 Hildebrand v. Allegheny Cty., 757 F.!3d 99 (CA3 2014)…………………………….. 18 Kimel v. Florida Bd. of Regents, 528 U.!S. 62 (2000)……………………………………19 Lawrence v. School Dist. No. 1, 2013 WL 1685715 (D Colo. 2013)………………….. 19 Levin v. Madigan, 692 F.!3d 607 (CA7 2012) ………………………19, 20 Mattoon v. Pittsfield, 980 F.!2d 1 (CA1 1992)…………………………passim Mays v. City of Flint, Mich., 871 F.!3d 437 (CA6 2017)………………….8, 9, 10, 11 Mays v. Snyder, 2017 WL 445637 (E.D. Mich. 2017)……………… 1, 6 vi Middlesex County Sewerage Authority v. National Sea Clammers Association, 453 U.!S. 1 (1981)…......................................... passim Migneault v. Peck, 158 F.!3d 1131 (CA10 1998)…………………………19 Smith v. Robinson, 468 U.!S. 992 (1984)........... passim Stillwell v. City of Williams, 831 F.!3d 1234 (CA9 2016)…………………….. 19, 20 Wyoming v. Zinke, 871 F.!3d 1133 (CA10 2017)…………………………..8 Zombro v. Baltimore City Police Dep’t, 868 F.!2d 1364 (CA4 1989)…………………………..19 Statutes 100 Stat. 643, § 101(b)…………………………………... 7 130 Stat. 1005…………………………………………….. 4 130 Stat. 1628…………………………………………….. 4 33 U.S.C. § 1251………………………………………… 12 33 U.S.C. § 1365………………………………………… 12 33 U.S.C. § 1401………………………………………… 12 33 U.S.C. § 1415(g)…………………………………..…. 12 42 U.S.C. § 1983…………………………………… passim 42 U.S.C. § 1988………………………………………….12 42 U.S.C. §§ 300g-1(b)(1)–(b)(3)………………………... 7 42 U.S.C. § 300g-2(a)…………………………………….. 8 42 U.S.C. § 300g-3………………………………………... 8 42 U.S.C. § 300g-3(c)………………………………….. 7, 8 42 U.S.C. § 300h-2(b)…………………………………….. 8 42 U.S.C. § 300i-1…………………………………………8 vii 42 U.S.C. § 300i(2)………………………………………..8 42 U.S.C. § 300j-4(c)……………………………………...8 42 U.S.C. § 300j-7………………………………………… 8 42 U.S.C. § 300j-8……………………………….........1, 12 42 U.S.C. § 300j-8(a)…………………………………….12 42 U.S.C. § 300j-8(b)……………………………………... 8 81 Stat. 602………………………………………………..3 86 Stat. 888–889………………………………………...12 86 Stat. 1057–1058…………………………………......12 88 Stat. 1660………………………………................. 1, 7 88 Stat. 1690……………………………………………. 12 Mich. Comp. Laws §§ 325.1001–325.1023…………8, 9 Mich. Comp. Laws § 325.1003…………………………. 8 Mich. Comp. Laws § 325.1005(1)(c)……………………8 Mich. Comp. Laws § 325.1006…………………………. 9 Mich. Comp. Laws § 325.1007(1)……………………… 9 Mich. Comp. Laws § 325.1013………………….………9 Mich. Comp. Laws § 325.1015(1)……………………… 8 Mich. Comp. Laws §§ 325.1021(1)-(3)………………… 8 Regulations 40 C.!F.!R. §§ 141.80–141.91 ……………………………7 viii PETITION FOR A WRIT OF CERTIORARI The City of Flint, Darnell Earley, Gerald Ambrose, Dayne Walling, Howard Croft, Michael Glasgow, and Daugherty Johnson petition for a writ of certiorari to review the judgment of the Sixth Circuit in this case. OPINIONS BELOW The Sixth Circuit’s opinion reversing the district court is reported at Boler v. Early, 865 F.!3d 391 (CA6 2017) (Pets.’ Appx. 5a–51a.). The district court opinions dismissing Plaintiffs’ § 1983 claims are unreported, but the Boler opinion is available at 2016 WL 157327 (E.D. Mich. 2016) and the Mays opinion is available at 2017 WL 445637 (E.D. Mich. 2017). Both Opinions are also reproduced in the Appendix (Boler: Pets.’ Appx. 52a–58a; Mays: Pets’ Appx 59a-65a). JURISDICTION The Sixth Circuit issued its decision on July 28, 2017. The Sixth Circuit denied Petitioners’ timely request for rehearing and rehearing en banc on September 21, 2017. This Court has jurisdiction to grant a writ of certiorari under 28 U.!S.!C. § 1254(1). STATUTES INVOLVED This case involves the remedial provisions of the federal Safe Drinking Water Act, 88 Stat.