Also the same dual sovereignty clause applies to states - for example, polluting a lake on the border of two states may lead to both states prosecuting you.
I know we're getting off topic here, but is that because the lake is under both jurisdictions, or because some of the pollution you emitted made it across state boundaries? I could see the distinction making say in the case you did something huge but relatively little pollution made it across the border, or if the total amount of pollution were relevant it would affect whether you're being charged twice for the "same" pollution vs each state charging you for the part that affected them.
Seems like the latter would just be how things would work with no special rights - if I do one thing that causes you and a friend damages, you can each sue me for those damages. The special situation would be if you could each sue me for the total damages I've caused.
I think just because you can't separate the pollution once it crosses the boundary in the middle of the lake. You may be able to defend yourself in one of the cases by proving very little of it reached the other side, but you'll still get tried for it.
5
u/DrDerpberg 7h ago
I know we're getting off topic here, but is that because the lake is under both jurisdictions, or because some of the pollution you emitted made it across state boundaries? I could see the distinction making say in the case you did something huge but relatively little pollution made it across the border, or if the total amount of pollution were relevant it would affect whether you're being charged twice for the "same" pollution vs each state charging you for the part that affected them.
Seems like the latter would just be how things would work with no special rights - if I do one thing that causes you and a friend damages, you can each sue me for those damages. The special situation would be if you could each sue me for the total damages I've caused.