In the case, Georgia v Tennessee Copper, the state of Georgia brought a suit against Tennessee Cooper for environmental damages caused by operations of the copper company. Interestingly, the state of Georgia was granted an injunction to stop the production of copper on the premise that its business practices hurt the health of the citizens of the state. Nevertheless, the injunction granted to the state of Georgia carries the same argument brought forth in the case Madison v Ducktown Sulphur, Copper & Iron Co. (1904) ,where normal citizens argued for an injunction and lost the case because the economic impact of these companies would hurt more citizens than pollution and small damages to private lands. Justice Marshall’s inclination towards the state of Georgia reveals a power disparity where the demands of citizens are outweighed versus the demands of the state, a vastly more powerful and resourceful sovereign. Justice Marshall, in his decision, should have treated the state of Georgia as a regular party considering not only the message of helplessness the case sends…show more content… The state has a legal obligation through the constitution to answer to its citizen's needs since these needs and demands are vital for a democratic society to function. The state may be susceptible to outside influences like monetary and financial interest, which at many times can emerge from the private sector, but such influences should not disqualify the state from the responsibility. The state as the creator of laws is the most appropriate institution to monitor the needs of its people. Nevertheless, through its legal system can enforce, create, and amend laws to ensure the wellbeing of its citizens. The implementation is detrimental because it lays out the rules that will protect citizens, while also making the government accountable for any misuse of the
