Everything you need to know about ranked-choice voting in one spot. Click to learn more!

Mississippi v. Tennessee

From Ballotpedia
Jump to: navigation, search

Supreme Court of the United States
Mississippi v. Tennessee
Term: 2021
Important Dates
Argued: October 4, 2021
Decided: November 22, 2021
Outcome
Dismissed
Vote
9-0
Majority
Chief Justice John Roberts • Clarence Thomas • Stephen Breyer • Samuel Alito • Sonia Sotomayor • Elena Kagan • Neil Gorsuch • Brett Kavanaugh • Amy Coney Barrett

Mississippi v. Tennessee is a case argued before the Supreme Court of the United States on October 4, 2021, during the court's October 2021-2022 term.

On November 22, 2021, the court dismissed Mississippi's complaint in a unanimous ruling, holding that the groundwater aquifer at issue was subject to the judicial remedy of equitable apportionment. Chief Justice John Roberts delivered the majority opinion of the court.[1] Click here for more information about the ruling.

HIGHLIGHTS
  • The issue: The case concerned a dispute between the States of Mississippi and Tennessee involving an aquifer's groundwater. Click here to learn more about the case's background.
  • The questions presented:
    1. "Whether the Court will grant Mississippi leave to file an original action to seek relief from respondents’ use of a pumping operation to take approximately 252 billion gallons of high-quality groundwater;
    2. "whether Mississippi has sole sovereign authority over and control of groundwater naturally stored within its borders, including in sandstone within Mississippi’s borders; and
    3. "whether Mississippi is entitled to damages, injunctive, and other equitable relief for the Mississippi intrastate groundwater intentionally and forcibly taken by respondents."[2][3]
  • The outcome: The U.S. Supreme Court dismissed Mississippi's complaint.


    • The case came under the court's original jurisdiction.

    Timeline

    The following timeline details key events in this case:

    • November 22, 2021: The U.S. Supreme Court dismissed Mississippi's complaint.
    • October 4, 2021: The U.S. Supreme Court heard oral argument.
    • July 2, 2021: The U.S. Supreme Court agreed to hear the case.
    • February 22, 2021: Mississippi and Tennessee each filed exceptions to the special master's report.
    • November 5, 2020: The court received the special master's first report.
    • November 10, 2015: The court appointed Eugene Siler, Jr. as a special master in the case.
    • June 29, 2015: The U.S. Supreme Court granted the motion for leave to file a bill of complaint.
    • June 6, 2014: The State of Mississippi filed a motion for leave to file a bill of complaint with the U.S. Supreme Court.

    Background

    In 2014, The State of Mississippi filed a motion for leave to file a bill of complaint with the U.S. Supreme Court against the State of Tennessee, the City of Memphis, Tennessee, and the Memphis Light, Gas & Water Division ("MLGW"), collectively referred to as Tennessee involving groundwater in an aquifer. Mississippi alleged that Tennessee used a commercial pumping operation to forcibly take approximately 252 billion gallons of groundwater in Mississippi's sovereign territory. The groundwater, according to the complaint, is intrastate water naturally collected and stored within the Mississippi's state borders in a sandstone formation and is not a naturally shared resource. In its motion, Mississippi asked if it would be entitled to damages and relief as a result of the pumping.[4]

    In response, Tennessee cited Mississippi's 2005 lawsuit against Memphis and MLGW with the United States District Court for the Northern District of Mississippi for wrongful taking of the groundwater. The district court held that the aquifer was an interstate resource and that Mississippi could not be granted relief unless and until the aquifer was apportioned, or divided and assigned. The United States Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit affirmed the ruling, and the U.S. Supreme Court denied Mississippi's petition for review. In its response, Tennessee argued that Mississippi was forwarding the same arguments as it did in its first lawsuit, that Mississippi failed to state a viable claim, and that the issue preclusion doctrine barred relitigation of these issues. Tennessee requested that the court deny Mississippi's motion for leave to file a complaint.[5]

    On June 29, 2015, the U.S. Supreme Court granted the motion for leave to file a bill of complaint. On November 10 of that year, the court appointed Eugene Siler, Jr. as a special master in the case.

    On November 5, 2020, the court received the special master's first report. In it, Siler recommended that Mississippi's case be dismissed.[6] On July 2, 2021, SCOTUS agreed to hear oral arguments in the case.

    Questions presented

    The petitioner presented the following questions to the court:[2]

    Questions presented:
    “
    1. Whether the Court will grant Mississippi leave to file an original action to seek relief from respondents’ use of a pumping operation to take approximately 252 billion gallons of high-quality groundwater;
    2. whether Mississippi has sole sovereign authority over and control of groundwater naturally stored within its borders, including in sandstone within Mississippi’s borders; and
    3. whether Mississippi is entitled to damages, injunctive, and other equitable relief for the Mississippi intrastate groundwater intentionally and forcibly taken by respondents.[7]
    		 ”

    Oral argument

    Audio

    Audio of oral argument:[8]



    Transcript

    Transcript of oral argument:[9]

    Outcome

    In a unanimous ruling, the court dismissed Mississippi's complaint without permission to amend it, holding that the groundwater aquifer at issue was subject to the judicial remedy of equitable apportionment. Chief Justice John Roberts delivered the majority opinion of the court.[1]

    Opinion

    In the court's majority opinion, Chief Justice Roberts wrote:[1]

    “ Mississippi brought an original action against Tennessee for damages and other relief related to the pumping of groundwater by the City of Memphis from the Middle Claiborne Aquifer, a valuable water resource that lies beneath eight States. Mississippi argues that Tennessee’s pumping—using wells Mississippi concedes are located entirely in Tennessee—siphons water away from Mississippi and amounts to a tortious taking of groundwater owned by Mississippi. Mississippi expressly disclaims any equitable apportionment remedy, arguing that the “fundamental premise of this Court’s equitable apportionment jurisprudence—that each of the opposing States has an equality of right to use the waters at issue—does not apply to this dispute.” Complaint ¶49. The Special Master appointed by the Court to assess Mississippi’s claims determined that the aquifer is an interstate water resource and that equitable apportionment is the exclusive judicial remedy. Because Mississippi’s complaint did not seek equitable apportionment, the Special Master recommended that the Court dismiss the complaint but grant Mississippi leave to amend. Mississippi challenges the recommendation to dismiss; Tennessee objects to the recommendation to grant Mississippi leave to file an amended complaint.


    Held: The waters of the Middle Claiborne Aquifer are subject to the judicial remedy of equitable apportionment; Mississippi’s complaint is dismissed without leave to amend.

    (a) The doctrine of equitable apportionment aims to produce a fair allocation of a shared water resource between two or more States, see Colorado v. New Mexico, 459 U. S. 176, 183, based on the principle that States have an equal right to reasonable use of shared water resources. Florida v. Georgia, 592 U. S. __, __. ...

    ... (b) The Court rejects Mississippi’s contention that it has a sovereign ownership right to all water beneath its surface that precludes application of equitable apportionment. The Court has “consistently denied” the proposition that a State may exercise exclusive ownership or control of interstate “waters flowing within her boundaries.” Hinderlider v. La Plata River & Cherry Creek Ditch Co., 304 U.S. 92, 102. ... Because the waters contained in the Middle Claiborne Aquifer are subject to equitable apportionment, the Court overrules Mississippi’s exceptions and adopts the Special Master’s recommendation to dismiss the bill of complaint. Pp. 9–11.

    (c) Mississippi has neither sought leave to amend its complaint nor tendered a proposed complaint seeking equitable apportionment. The Court does not address whether Mississippi should be granted such leave and sustains Tennessee’s objection to the Special Master’s recommendation to grant Mississippi leave to amend. Pp. 11–12.

    Exceptions overruled in part and sustained in part, and case dismissed.[7]

    		”
    —Chief Justice John Roberts


    Text of the opinion

    Read the full opinion here.

    October term 2021-2022

    See also: Supreme Court cases, October term 2021-2022

    The Supreme Court began hearing cases for the term on October 4, 2021. The court's yearly term begins on the first Monday in October and lasts until the first Monday in October the following year. The court generally releases the majority of its decisions in mid-June.[10]

    The court agreed to hear 68 cases during its 2021-2022 term.[11] Four cases were dismissed and one case was removed from the argument calendar.[12]

    The court issued decisions in 66 cases during its 2021-2022 term. Three cases were decided without argument. Between 2007 and 2021, SCOTUS released opinions in 1,128 cases, averaging 75 cases per year.


    See also

    External links

    Footnotes

    1. ↑ 1.0 1.1 1.2 U.S. Supreme Court, Mississippi v. Tennessee, decided November 22, 2021
    2. ↑ 2.0 2.1 SCOTUSblog, "Mississippi v. Tennessee," accessed July 2, 2021
    3. ↑ U.S. Supreme Court, "Mississippi v. Tennessee: ON MOTION FOR LEAVE TO FILE A BILL OF COMPLAINT," filed June 6, 2014
    4. ↑ U.S. Supreme Court, "Mississippi v. Tennessee: On Motion for Leave to File Bill of Complaint in Original Action," June 6, 2014
    5. ↑ U.S. Supreme Court, "Mississippi v. Tennessee: On Motion for Leave to File Bill of Complaint in Original Action; Brief of the City of Memphis, Tennessee, and Memphis Light, Gas & Water Division in opposition to the State of Mississippi's motion for leave to file bill of complaint in original action," September 5, 2014
    6. ↑ U.S. Supreme Court, "Mississippi v. Tennessee: On Bill of Complaint; Report of the Special Master," November 5, 2020
    7. ↑ 7.0 7.1 Note: This text is quoted verbatim from the original source. Any inconsistencies are attributable to the original source.
    8. ↑ Supreme Court of the United States, "Oral Argument - Audio," accessed October 4, 2021
    9. ↑ Supreme Court of the United States, "Mississippi v. Tennessee - oral argument transcript," accessed October 4, 2021
    10. ↑ SupremeCourt.gov, "The Supreme Court at Work: The Term and Caseload," accessed February 4, 2021
    11. ↑ Consolidated cases are counted as one case for purposes of this number.
    12. ↑ U.S. Supreme Court, "Order List: 593 U.S.," May 17, 2021
    Retrieved from "https://ballotpedia.org/wiki/index.php?title=Mississippi_v._Tennessee&oldid=8891698"