138 S.Ct. 954
U.S.2018Background
- The Rio Grande Compact (approved by Congress in 1939) apportioned water among Colorado, New Mexico, and Texas; Colorado must deliver water to New Mexico, and New Mexico must deliver water to the Elephant Butte Reservoir, which supplies downstream users.
- The Elephant Butte Reservoir was built by the United States as part of the Rio Grande Project; the U.S. also entered Downstream Contracts to supply water to downstream New Mexico and Texas districts.
- Texas sued New Mexico in the Supreme Court (original action) alleging New Mexico’s downstream diversions below Elephant Butte violate the Compact by preventing required deliveries to the reservoir.
- The United States intervened and filed parallel claims alleging Compact violations; New Mexico moved to dismiss parts of the U.S. complaint.
- The Special Master recommended denying New Mexico’s motion as to Texas’s claims but recommended dismissing part of the U.S. complaint on the ground that the Compact does not give the United States an enforcement right.
- The Supreme Court considered whether the United States, as intervenor, may pursue Compact-based claims in this original action and held it may, under the specific facts presented.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| May the U.S., as intervenor, assert claims for violations of the Rio Grande Compact in an existing original action between States? | U.S.: Yes — it has a distinct federal interest tied to the Rio Grande Project, Downstream Contracts, and treaty obligations to Mexico. | New Mexico: No — the Compact does not confer enforcement power on the federal government beyond treaty duties. | Held: Yes — U.S. may pursue the Compact claims pleaded here given interconnection with federal projects/contracts, concessions by New Mexico, treaty risk, and alignment with Texas’s suit. |
| Is U.S. participation equivalent to a license to intervene in any interstate-compact dispute? | U.S.: (implicit) its federal interests justify participation here. | Colorado: U.S. should be limited to treaty-based claims only. | Held: No blanket license; permission is limited and fact-dependent — allowed here but not a general rule. |
| Does the Compact’s clause that it shall not affect U.S. treaty obligations bar U.S. Compact claims? | U.S.: No — permitting suit helps vindicate and protect treaty obligations. | New Mexico: Clause indicates Compact was not intended to create U.S. enforcement rights. | Held: Clause preserves U.S. obligations but does not preclude the U.S. from bringing Compact claims when federal interests would be jeopardized. |
| Could the U.S. initiate new litigation to force a State to perform Compact obligations here? | U.S.: Not addressed as a general proposition in this decision. | States: Contend limits should apply to expansion of original controversy scope. | Held: Court did not decide whether U.S. could commence standalone litigation to compel a State; decision limited to U.S. joining existing Texas action. |
Key Cases Cited
- Maryland v. Louisiana, 451 U.S. 725 (1981) (federal government may participate in interstate disputes to protect distinctively federal interests)
- Texas v. New Mexico, 462 U.S. 554 (1983) (compact becomes federal law once Congress consents)
- Sanitary Dist. of Chicago v. United States, 266 U.S. 405 (1925) (U.S. has strong interest in preventing interference with its treaty obligations)
- North Dakota v. Minnesota, 263 U.S. 365 (1923) (original jurisdiction role as substitute for diplomatic settlement)
- Kentucky v. Dennison, 65 U.S. 66 (1861) (Court’s authority to mold original actions to promote justice)