Pennsylvania v. West Virginia

Background

Mr. Justice Van Devanter announced the ruling for the Court. An opinion expressing the Court’s views was announced at the last term and a decree was entered then. By the Court’s leave, a petition for rehearing was filed and rehearing was granted. The cases were argued orally three times, although three members of the Court had heard only the final presentation. The rehearing was held two weeks before this announcement, in light of the importance of the questions and the public character of the litigants.

Reasoning

The central question was whether the Court should change its prior opinion and the decree after hearing the cases again. After further reflection and the recent rehearing, the Court found no ground for disturbing the opinion previously announced or the decree entered thereon. The Court therefore reaffirmed the prior decree and left the earlier judgment intact. The Chief Justice did not participate in consideration of the cases on rehearing.

Real world impact

The practical effect is that the earlier decree remains in force and the cases’ outcome is unchanged. People or public entities affected by that decree must continue to follow it. Because the Court expressly reconsidered the matter and again declined to alter the result, the litigation’s status is settled under this Court ruling for now.

Dissents or concurrances

Three Justices—Holmes, McReynolds, and Brandeis—dissented. Their disagreement rests on the reasons set out in their dissenting opinions from the last term.