Montana v. Washington

The U.S. Supreme Court denied Montana and Wyoming’s motion for leave to file a bill of complaint that asserted that the State of Washington denied access to its ports for shipments of Montana and Wyoming’s coal in violation of the dormant Commerce Clause and the Foreign Commerce Clause. Justices Thomas and Alito would have granted the motion.

The Acting Solicitor General filed a brief in the Supreme Court expressing the United States’ view that the Court should deny Montana and Wyoming’s motion for leave to file a bill of complaint against the State of Washington for allegedly unconstitutional actions blocking export of coal mined in Montana and Wyoming from Washington ports. The U.S. contended that because the developer of the proposed coal export terminal at issue in the case had filed for bankruptcy and would not be building the terminal, this proceeding would not redress Montana and Wyoming’s asserted injury and there was therefore no Article III case or controversy.

Montana and Wyoming told the Court that their sovereign interests were at stake and that their injuries were redressable. They also said Washington’s denial of the certification was discriminatory in violation of the Commerce Clause and Foreign Commerce Clause.

The State of Washington filed a brief in the U.S. Supreme Court opposing Montana and Wyoming’s motion for leave to file a bill of complaint alleging that Washington violated the dormant Commerce Clause and Foreign Commerce Clause by denying a Clean Water Act Section 401 certification for a coal export terminal. Washington argued that the issues raised by Montana and Wyoming were related to a private dispute and were being addressed in other state and federal courts. Washington also argued that reversal of the denial of the Section 401 certification would not allow the project to proceed. In addition, Washington contended that the claims were meritless because the denial was “based on valid environmental concerns specifically authorized by federal law, not discriminatory motives,” and the denial of a single permit did not amount to an “embargo” or “blockade” on the transport of coal from Montana and Wyoming through Montana.

Montana and Wyoming filed a motion for leave to file a bill of complaint in the U.S. Supreme Court asserting that the State of Washington had denied access to its ports for shipments of Montana and Wyoming’s coal in violation of the dormant Commerce Clause and the Foreign Commerce Clause. Montana and Wyoming alleged that the Washington’s denial of a Section 401 certification for the Millennium Bulk Terminal was based on Washington officials’ “discriminatory favoritism of Washington products over Montana and Wyoming coal”; the Washington governor’s political opposition to coal; and “perceived extra-territorial environmental impacts of coal combustion in foreign markets.” The two states argued that the “seriousness and dignity” of their claims warranted exercise of the Court’s original jurisdiction and that they had no other forum in which to pursue their claims.