No. 19-_________ ================================================================================================================ In The Supreme Court of the United States --------------------------------- --------------------------------- CITY OF FLINT, et al., Petitioners, v. SHARI GUERTIN, 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 --------------------------------- --------------------------------- Attorney for City of Flint Attorneys for City of Flint WILLIAM Y. KIM* FREDERICK A. BERG, JR. Assistant City Attorney SHELDON H. KLEIN CITY OF FLINT DEPT. OF LAW BUTZEL LONG, P.C. 1101 S. Saginaw, 3rd Floor 150 W. Jefferson Ave., Flint, MI 48502 Suite 100 (810) 766-7146 Detroit, MI 48226 [email protected] (313) 225-7000 [email protected] *Counsel of Record [email protected] Date: August 14, 2019 [Additional Counsel Listed On Inside Cover] ================================================================================================================ COCKLE LEGAL BRIEFS (800) 225-6964 WWW.COCKLELEGALBRIEFS.COM Attorney for Darnell Earley Attorney for Gerald Ambrose TODD PERKINS BARRY A. WOLF PERKINS LAW GROUP LAW OFFICE OF 615 W. Griswold, Suite 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 Attorney for Howard Croft [email protected] ALEXANDER S. RUSEK WHITE LAW PLLC 2549 Jolly Rd., Suite 340 Okemos, MI 48664 (517) 316-1195 [email protected] i QUESTIONS PRESENTED The Questions Presented are: 1. Whether the substantive due process right to bodily integrity should be extended to protect the public at large from exposure to an environmental toxin resulting from governmental policy decisions. 2. Whether it is plausible that a municipal officer’s actions were conscience-shocking where the Respondents admit that the policy decisions were based on the advice and direction of the controlling State reg- ulatory agency and with the advice of ex- pert advisors. 3. If the answer to Questions 1 or 2 is “yes,” was the right clearly established? 4. Whether the City, which was under the substantially complete control and au- thority of the State under Michigan’s “Lo- cal Financial Stability and Choice Act of 2012,” was an arm of the State and thus entitled to immunity from suit under the Eleventh Amendment. ii PARTIES TO THE PROCEEDING Petitioners are Defendants City of Flint, Darnell Earley, Gerald Ambrose, and Howard Croft. The City is a Michigan municipality. During the relevant time pe- riod, the City was governed by State-appointed emer- gency managers. Messrs. Earley and Ambrose are former Emergency Managers who held office sequen- tially. Mr. Croft is the former Director of the City’s De- partment of Public Works, which includes the Flint Water Treatment Plant.1 Respondents are Plaintiffs Shari Guertin, indi- vidually and as next friend of her child, E.B., and Diogenes Muse-Cleveland. The other remaining Defendants are: former Michi- gan Department of Environmental Quality personnel Liane Shekter-Smith; Steven Busch, Michael Prysby and Bradley Wurfel, as well as two engineering firms – Veolia North America, LLC and Lockwood Andrews & Newnam, Inc. 1 Petitioners Croft, Earley, and Ambrose will sometimes be referred to as “Individual City Defendants” and, with the City, “City Defendants.” iii DIRECTLY RELATED CASES2 1. United States District Court for the Eastern Dis- trict of Michigan.2 • Guertin et al. v. State of Michigan, et al., Case No. 16-cv-12412. Opinion and Order entered June 5, 2017. 2. United States Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit. • Guertin et al. v. State of Michigan, et al., Case No. 17-1698, 17-1699, 17-1745, 17- 1752 and 17-1769. Opinion entered Janu- ary 4, 2019. • Guertin et al. v. State of Michigan, et al., Case No. 17-1699 and 17-1745. Order denying rehearing en banc entered May 16, 2019. 3. United States Supreme Court. • Busch, et al. v. Guertin et al., Application No. 19A111. 2 This case is one of 49 pending in the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Michigan that have been consol- idated as In re Flint Water Litigation, 16-cv-10444. It is unclear to petitioner whether that consolidated case of the member cases are “related” within the meaning of Supreme Court Rule 14. 1(b)(i). iv TABLE OF CONTENTS Page Questions Presented ............................................... i Parties to the Proceeding ....................................... ii Directly Related Cases ........................................... iii Table of Contents .................................................... iv Table of Authorities ................................................ vii Petition for a Writ of Certiorari ............................. 1 Opinions Below ....................................................... 1 Jurisdiction ............................................................. 1 Statutes Involved .................................................... 2 Introduction ............................................................ 3 Statement of the Case ............................................ 6 Reasons to Grant the Petition ................................ 12 I. This Court should decide whether the right to bodily integrity should be expanded to in- clude a right to protection from exposure to environmental toxins ................................... 12 A. The Panel Majority’s holding is unrooted in this Court’s substantive due process jurisprudence ......................................... 12 B. Courts have repeatedly rejected a sub- stantive due process right to be protected from environmental contaminants ....... 15 v TABLE OF CONTENTS – Continued Page II. This Court should decide whether it is plausible that the decisions of government officials acting with the approval of regula- tory enforcers and the advice of recognized experts can be found to be conscience- shocking ........................................................ 17 III. This Court should decide whether the al- leged right was clearly established ............. 22 IV. This Court should decide whether a munic- ipality under the complete control of the State is an arm of the State, entitled to Eleventh Amendment immunity ................. 25 Conclusion ............................................................... 28 TABLE OF APPENDICES: Appendix A Opinion of the Sixth Circuit Court of Appeals (January 4, 2019) ......... App. 1 Appendix B Opinion and Order of the U.S. Dis- trict Court for the Eastern District of Michigan Granting in Part and Denying in Part Defendants’ Mo- tion to Dismiss (June 5, 2017) ... App. 117 Appendix C Sixth Circuit Court of Appeals Or- der Denying Rehearing en banc (May 16, 2019) ............................ App. 201 vi TABLE OF CONTENTS – Continued Page Appendix D First Interim Report of the Special Master. In re Flint Water Cases, Case No. 16-cv-10444, Eastern Dis- trict of Michigan (February 22, 2019) ........................................... App. 220 Appendix E Complaint ................................... App. 240 Appendix F Michigan “Local Financial Stabil- ity and Choice Act of 2012,” Public Act 436 (excerpts) ....................... App. 356 vii TABLE OF AUTHORITIES Page CASES Arrington-Bey v. City of Bedford Heights, 858 F.3d 988 (6th Cir. 2017) .................................... 23 Ashcroft v. al-Kidd, 563 U.S. 731 (2011) ................................................. 24 Barrett v. United States, 798 F.2d 565 (2d Cir. 1986) ....................................... 9 Bell Atl. Corp. v. Twombly, 550 U.S. 544 (2007) ................................................. 17 Branch v. Christie, No. 16-2467 (JMV) (MF), 2018 WL 337751 (D.N.J. Jan. 8, 2018) .................... 15 Brannum v. Overton Cty. Sch. Bd., 516 F.3d 489 (6th Cir. 2008) .................................... 23 City of Escondido v. Emmons, ___ U.S. ___, 139 S. Ct. 500 (2019) .......................... 22 Cnty. of Sacramento v. Lewis, 523 U.S. 833 (1998) ........................................... 18, 20 Concerned Citizens of Neb. v. U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Comm’n, 970 F.2d 421 (8th Cir. 1992) .................................... 16 Coshow v. City of Escondido, 132 Cal. App. 4th 687 (Cal. Ct. App. 2005) ............. 15 Cruzan v. Dir., Missouri Dep’t of Health, 497 U.S. 261 (1990) ....................................... 9, 10, 15 Doe v. Claiborne Cty., 103 F.3d 495 (6th Cir. 1996) .................................... 14 viii TABLE OF AUTHORITIES – Continued Page Ernst v. Rising, 427 F.3d 351 (6th Cir. 2005) .............................. 25, 27 Hope v. Pelzer, 536 U.S. 730 (2002) ................................................. 24 Hunt v. Sycamore Community School Dist. Bd. of Educ., 542 F.3d 529 (6th Cir. 2008) .................................... 20 In re Cincinnati Radiation Litigation, 874 F. Supp. 796 (S.D. Ohio 1995) .......................... 11 Ingraham v. Wright, 430 U.S. 651 (1977) ........................................... 10, 14 Jones v. Reynolds, 438 F.3d 685 (6th Cir. 2006) .................................... 15 Juliana v. United States, 217 F. Supp. 3d 1224 (D. Or. 2016) ......................... 16 Kallstrom v. City of Columbus, 136 F.3d 1055 (6th Cir. 1998) .................................. 14 Kisela v. Hughes, 584 U.S. at ___, 138 S. Ct. 1148 (2018) ..................