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

Texas v. New Mexico (2017)

From Ballotpedia
Jump to: navigation, search

Supreme Court of the United States
Texas v. New Mexico and Colorado
Term: 2017
Important Dates
Argument: January 8, 2018
Decided: March 5, 2018
Outcome
United States allowed to intervene
Vote
9 - 0
Majority
Chief Justice John G. Roberts • Anthony Kennedy • Clarence Thomas • Ruth Bader Ginsburg • Stephen Breyer • Samuel Alito • Sonia Sotomayor • Elena Kagan • Neil Gorsuch


Texas v. New Mexico and Colorado is a case argued during the October 2017 term of the U.S. Supreme Court. Argument in the case was held on January 8, 2018. The case came to the court under the court's original jurisdiction over disputes between states.

The issue in this case was the United States' right to intervene in a dispute between Texas and New Mexico over water rights to the Rio Grande River.

HIGHLIGHTS
  • The case: In 2013, Texas filed a complaint against New Mexico, alleging that New Mexico's use of the Rio Grande River violated the Rio Grande Compact. The United States moved to intervene in the dispute, claiming that the case involved federal government rights and responsibilities.
  • The issue: Should the Supreme Court allow the United States to intervene in the case and, if so, may the United States bring claims under the Compact itself?
  • The outcome: The U.S. Supreme Court ruled unanimously that the United States could intervene in the suit and may file claims for violations of the Compact.[1]


    • In brief: After Texas filed a complaint against New Mexico with the United States Supreme Court, the United States requested the court's permission to intervene in the case. The United States argued that the case involved federal government rights and responsibilities. The court granted the motion to intervene, and the United States filed a complaint. New Mexico then moved to dismiss the United States' complaint. The Supreme Court scheduled oral arguments for January 9, 2018, on the issue of the United States' intervention in the case. On March 5, 2018, the U.S. Supreme Court ruled that the United States could intervene in the case.[1]

    Background

    Legal question

    This was a case about the apportionment of the Rio Grande River. Texas initially filed a complaint in 2013, alleging that New Mexico was in violation of the Rio Grande Compact by unlawfully depleting the Rio Grande River.[2] The Rio Grande Compact, an agreement signed by Colorado, New Mexico, and Texas, governs the use of the Rio Grande. It was created in 1938. The dispute in this case was between Texas and New Mexico. Colorado was not part of the dispute, but it was included in the case as a signatory of the Rio Grande Compact.[2]

    The United States Supreme Court has original jurisdiction over disputes between U.S. states. Original jurisdiction is the authority of a court to hear a case directly--that is, its authority to be the court that hears the case first. Most of the cases the Supreme Court hears fall under its appellate jurisdiction. Appellate jurisdiction is the authority of a court to review appeals of lower court decisions. Because this case involves a dispute between two states, Texas filed its initial complaint directly with the Supreme Court, rather than with a federal district court.

    In 2014, the Supreme Court granted Texas' request to file a complaint and appointed a special master to investigate Texas' claims.[3] New Mexico then filed a motion to dismiss Texas' complaint. That same year, the United States moved to intervene in the case, asserting that the case implicated federal claims.[3] The court granted the United States' motion, and the United States filed its own complaint in the case. New Mexico then moved to dismiss the United States' complaint.

    On February 9, 2017, the special master filed the first interim report. The report recommended that the Supreme Court deny New Mexico's motion to dismiss Texas' complaint. The report also recommended that the court grant New Mexico's motion to dismiss the United States' complaint but still hear some of the United States' claims against New Mexico.[3] The Supreme Court denied New Mexico's motion to dismiss Texas' claims. It then scheduled oral argument for January 9, 2018. The court limited oral argument to the United States' right to intervene in the case. At this stage of the case, the merits of Texas' claims are not being considered by the court.

    Case background

    In its initial request to the Supreme Court to file a complaint, Texas stated:

    “ The Rio Grande Compact, among other purposes, was entered into to protect the operation of the Rio Grande Reclamation Project. The Rio Grande Compact requires that New Mexico deliver specified amounts of Rio Grande water into Elephant Butte Reservoir, a storage feature of the Rio Grande Reclamation Project. Once delivered to Elephant Butte Reservoir, that water is allocated and belongs to Rio Grande Project beneficiaries in southern New Mexico and in Texas, based upon allocations derived from the Rio Grande Project authorization and relevant contractual arrangements. In order for water to be delivered to Rio Grande Project beneficiaries in southern New Mexico and in Texas, it must be released from Rio Grande Project facilities, and allowed to flow unimpeded through Rio Grande Project lands in southern New Mexico, and then across the state line into Texas. New Mexico has, contrary to the purpose and intent of the Rio Grande Compact, allowed and authorized Rio Grande Project water intended for use in Texas to be intercepted and used in New Mexico. New Mexico’s actions, in allowing and authorizing the interception of Rio Grande Project water intended for use in Texas, violates the purpose and intent of the Rio Grande Compact, causing grave and irreparable injury to Texas.[2][4] ”


    Question presented

    Question presented:

    "EXCEPTION OF THE UNITED STATES
    [Whether t]he United States excepts to the special master's recommendation that the United States' complaint in intervention should be dismissed to the extent that it asserts claims under the Rio Grande Compact, Act of May 31, 1939, ch. 155, 53 Stat. 785.

    EXCEPTION OF COLORADO
    [Whether t]he Court should limit the claims of the United States to those based on the Convention between the United States and Mexico for the Equitable Distribution of the Waters of the Rio Grande for Irrigation Purposes, May 21, 1906, U.S.-Mex. 34 Stat. 2953. "[5]

    Audio

    • Audio of oral argument:[6]



    Transcript

    Outcome

    Decision

    Justice Neil Gorsuch delivered the opinion of the court. The court ruled unanimously that the United States could intervene in the suit and bring claims for violations of the Compact.[1]

    Opinion

    In his opinion for the court, Justice Gorsuch concluded that four factors supported the United State's right to intervene in the case. First, he wrote, the Compact was tied up with other commitments and agreements to which the United States was a party:

    “ First, the Compact is inextricably intertwined with the Rio Grande Project and the Downstream Contracts. The

    Compact indicates that its purpose is to 'effec[t] an equitable apportionment' of 'the waters of the Rio Grande' between the affected States. Yet it can achieve that purpose only because, by the time the Compact was executed and enacted, the United States had assumed a legal responsibility to deliver a certain amount of water to Texas. In this way, the United States might be said to serve, through the Downstream Contracts, as a sort of agent of the Compact, charged with assuring that the Compact’s equitable apportionment' to Texas and part of New Mexico is, in fact, made.[1][4]

    		”

    Second, Gorsuch noted, New Mexico had "conceded that the United States plays an integral role in the Compact’s operation." Specifically, "Early in these proceedings, it argued that the federal government was an indispensable party to this lawsuit because it is 'responsible for . . . delivery of . . . water' as required by the Downstream Contracts and anticipated by the Compact." Third, he continued, "a breach of the Compact could jeopardize the federal government’s ability to satisfy its treaty obligations" under a treaty with Mexico. Fourth and finally, he wrote, allowing the United States to intervene did not change the claims at issue, since the United States' claims were the same claims Texas had originally raised.[1] "Taken together," he concluded, "we are persuaded these factors favor allowing the United States to pursue the Compact claims it has pleaded in this original action."[1]

    Gorsuch emphasized that the court's decision to allow the United States to intervene in this case "should not be confused for license... [J]ust because Congress enjoys a special role in approving interstate agreements, it does not necessarily follow that the United States has blanket authority to intervene in cases concerning the construction of those agreements." He continued, "Nothing in our opinion should be taken to suggest whether a different result would obtain in the absence of any of the considerations we have outlined or in the presence of additional, countervailing considerations."[1]

    Text of the opinion

    See also

    Footnotes

    1. ↑ 1.0 1.1 1.2 1.3 1.4 1.5 1.6 United States Supreme Court, Texas v. New Mexico Opinion, March 5, 2018
    2. ↑ 2.0 2.1 2.2 United States Supreme Court, "Texas v. New Mexico and Colorado Motion to file complaint, January 8, 2013
    3. ↑ 3.0 3.1 3.2 United States Supreme Court, Texas v. New Mexico and Colorado First interim report of the special master, February 9, 2017
    4. ↑ 4.0 4.1 Note: This text is quoted verbatim from the original source. Any inconsistencies are attributable to the original source.
    5. ↑ United States Supreme Court, Texas v. New Mexico and Colorado Question Presented, October 10, 2017
    6. ↑ Supreme Court of the United States, Texas v. New Mexico, argued January 8, 2018
    Retrieved from "https://ballotpedia.org/wiki/index.php?title=Texas_v._New_Mexico_(2017)&oldid=8891617"