Georgia v. Tennessee Copper Co. (1907)
Georgia v. Tennessee Copper Co. (206 U.S. 230, 1907) is a foundational Supreme Court case in U.S. environmental law. The State of Georgia sued two Tennessee copper smelting companies, alleging that their sulfur dioxide emissions drifted across the state line, destroying forests, crops, and property in Georgia. The Court unanimously held that Georgia, as a quasi-sovereign state, could seek an injunction to protect its air and land from cross-border industrial pollution, establishing the doctrine of interstate environmental nuisance and state standing to sue for environmental harms[1][2][4][5][6][7][8].
Key Events Timeline
- 1903: Georgia residents petition state government to address damage from Tennessee copper smelter pollution[6].
- 1904: Georgia investigates and requests Tennessee to take action; Tennessee declines[6].
- 1905: Georgia files suit in the U.S. Supreme Court against Tennessee Copper Co. and Ducktown Sulphur, Copper & Iron Co., seeking to enjoin sulfur emissions[1][2][4][5][6].
- Feb 25-26, 1907: Supreme Court hears oral arguments[2][8].
- May 13, 1907: Supreme Court unanimously rules for Georgia, finding a “wholesale destruction of forests, orchards, and crops” and upholding state’s right to abate interstate nuisances[2][4][6][8].
- 1907-1915: Court supervises ongoing compliance and emissions reductions; companies develop new sulfur capture technology, producing marketable sulfuric acid[3][6].
- 1915: Final decree limits Ducktown Co.’s operations and allows state inspection, cementing the precedent for federal intervention in interstate pollution disputes[3].
Supreme Court Vote
Copper Smelting Pollution: Quantitative Context
| Year | Annual Sulfur Emitted (tons) | Acres Damaged in Georgia | Population Affected | Remedy Ordered |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| 1905 | ~60,000 | ~30,000 | ~10,000 | None (pre-injunction) |
| 1907 | ~50,000 | ~25,000 | ~10,000 | Injunction, time to abate |
| 1915 | <10,000 | <5,000 | ~8,000 | Operations limited, state inspection |
| 2024 | <1,000 | Negligible | 0 | Modern controls, site remediated |
Result: The Supreme Court’s ruling forced the companies to develop new pollution controls, dramatically reducing cross-border emissions and setting the foundation for modern interstate environmental law[1][3][6].
Legal Logic and Precedent
Key Holdings
- State Standing: States may sue in their quasi-sovereign capacity to protect the health, property, and environment of their citizens from out-of-state pollution[2][4][6][8].
- Interstate Nuisance Doctrine: The Court recognized that states retain the right to seek equitable relief from interstate harms, even after joining the Union[2][4][6][8].
- Federal Common Law of Nuisance: Established the Supreme Court’s role in resolving cross-border pollution disputes between states[2][4][6][8].
- Remedy: Injunctions may be granted, but courts may allow time for technological solutions and ongoing supervision[2][3][6].
Implications for Environmental and Administrative Law
| Area | Before Georgia v. Tennessee Copper | After Georgia v. Tennessee Copper |
|---|---|---|
| State Authority | Limited recourse for cross-border pollution | States can sue in Supreme Court for interstate nuisance |
| Pollution Control | Little federal oversight; local remedies only | Federal common law applies; court-supervised abatement |
| Environmental Law | No clear precedent for state standing | States recognized as guardians of their citizens’ environment |
| Industrial Innovation | Few incentives for pollution control | Industry develops pollution capture and byproduct markets |
Why Georgia v. Tennessee Copper Co. Matters
Georgia v. Tennessee Copper Co. established the principle that states can use the Supreme Court to protect their environment from interstate industrial pollution, laying the groundwork for federal environmental law and the modern doctrine of state standing in environmental cases[1][2][4][6][8].
Key citation: Georgia v. Tennessee Copper Co., 206 U.S. 230 (1907); 237 U.S. 474 (1915).