Full access allows:
- Solve all tests online without limits;
- Remove all advertisements on website;
- Adding questions to favorite list;
- Save learning progress;
- Save results of practice exams;
- Watching all wrong answered questions.
7. May the operators of the federal office building be prosecuted successfully by state authorities for violating that state's pollution control standards?
A federally owned and operated office building in a particular state is heated with a new, pollution-free heating system. However, in the coldest season of the year, this new system is sometimes insufficient to supply adequate heat to the building. The appropriation statute providing the money for construction of the new heating system permitted use of the old, pollution-generating system when necessary to supply additional heat. When the old heating system operates (only about two days in any year), the smokestack of the building emits smoke that exceeds the state's pollution-control standards.
Comments (0)
There are no comments at the moment. If you found an error or think question is incorrect, tell everyone about it
Only signed in users can write comments
Signin
The power of state governments is sometimes called «inherent» because a state government, as far as the U.S. Constitution is concerned, holds a general «police power,» i.e., the power to protect the health, safety, or general welfare of state residents. An action by a state government is valid under federal law unless it violates any specific limitation imposed by the U.S. Constitution.
C is correct. State authorities may not prosecute the operators of the federal office building under the state pollution control standards because the doctrine of sovereign immunity ensures that the federal government may not be sued without its consent. Absent some other exception, such as a federal official acting beyond the scope of his powers or in an unconstitutional manner (neither of which applies here), the state may not sue the federal operators without consent here.
A is incorrect. It may be properly within the state's power to regulate pollution in the service of the health, safety, or general welfare of its residents. Nevertheless, a state's exercise of such police power will not overcome the federal government's immunity from suit absent its consent.
B is incorrect. Even though regulating pollution is a joint concern of the state and federal governments, this does not mean both may regulate conduct causing pollution without regard to other constitutional provisions. States cannot control or sue the federal government (absent consent) and therefore, despite the importance of pollution control, this prosecution would be improper.
D is incorrect. This answer reaches the correct answer with the wrong reasoning. The state may not sue the federal operators, but not because the violations of the pollution control standards are de minimis. States may properly regulate such violations, no matter how de minimis, when bringing actions against private parties. It is the doctrine of sovereign immunity that precludes suit against the federal government here.