Supreme Court came to an abrupt end Monday with a terse two-sentence denial from the court. Asian carp have been making their way up the Mississippi and Illinois rivers for decades since being imported to clean catfish ponds in southern parts of the country, while government workers also attempted to use the fish for weed control sewage disposal. DNA tests suggest that at least some fish have already made their way past the electric fish barriers. Nick Schroeck, executive director of the Great Lakes Environmental Law Center, said the attorney general has several legal options, including suing the state of Illinois and the federal government in federal court. He could also a file suit in state court in Illinois against the Metropolitan Water Reclamation District of Greater Chicago, which oversees the network of locks and canals that threaten to let the carp into Lake Michigan. Since the case was reopened in December, the Michigan case generated more than two dozen motions, responses, memoranda, appendices and friend of the court briefs.
Data Protection Choices
Supreme Court Rejects Michigan’s Asian Carp Lawsuit - Circle of Blue
February 27, The U. Supreme Court on Monday rejected an appeal by five states seeking an order requiring that a range of steps be taken to keep the invading Asian carp out of the Great Lakes where they are considered a threat to fisheries. The high court refused to hear an appeal by Michigan , Minnesota , Ohio , Pennsylvaniaand Wisconsin after the states lost their bid for a preliminary injunction that would have required additional efforts to stop the migration of the voracious carp into the lakes. The carp have taken over stretches of the Mississippi River and its tributaries. Army Corps of Engineers and the Chicago area waterway system already have adopted a number of measures to block the advance of the carp into Lake Michigan. The carp can spread rapidly, crowding out other native fish species.
Original: Wisconsin v. Illinois/Michigan v. Illinois/New York v. Illinois - Opposiiton
In Wisconsin v. Illinois, U. The questions presented by the State of Michigan's motion are:. Whether a demand that the United States, the State of Illinois, and the Metropolitan Water Reclama tion District Water District take certain steps to im pede the migration of two invasive species of Asian carp is "proper in relation to the subject matter" of the water-diversion litigation, as necessary to warrant re opening of that litigation. Whether this Court should exercise its discretion to permit Michigan to commence a new original action in this Court rather than pursue equally effective relief in federal district court against the responsible federal agencies and the Water District.