Kansas v. Missouri
Headline: Kansas–Missouri border clarified as the Court amends its decree and establishes the state line along the Missouri River’s main navigable channel, affecting land and river rights for both states.
Holding:
- Establishes official river-channel boundary between Kansas and Missouri.
- Allows gradual accretion and reliction to change the border, but not avulsion.
- Splits the case costs equally between the two States.
Summary
Background
This dispute involved the States of Kansas and Missouri and was argued by their attorneys during the October Term, 1943. The Court had entered a prior decree on June 5, 1944, setting a boundary between the States. After that decree, the two state legislatures agreed on a boundary, Congress ratified that agreement by Public Law 637 on August 3, 1950, and the President approved the resolution. Counsel jointly moved to amend the Court’s earlier decree to match the states’ agreement.
Reasoning
The Court addressed whether its decree should be changed to conform to the boundary the States and Congress had adopted. The Court granted the parties’ joint motion and amended its decree to follow the agreed-upon line. The amended decree establishes the boundary as the middle line of the main navigable channel of the Missouri River from its intersection with the 40th parallel southward to the middle of the mouth of the Kaw (Kansas) River, and it allows only natural river changes by accretion or reliction, not sudden shifts (avulsion).
Real world impact
The ruling fixes the official state border between Kansas and Missouri along the Missouri River’s main channel as agreed by the States and ratified by Congress. It affects ownership, river use, and enforcement of state authority along that stretch. The decree also orders that the costs of the suit be divided equally between the two States.
Ask about this case
Ask questions about the entire case, including all opinions (majority, concurrences, dissents).
What was the Court's main decision and reasoning?
How did the dissenting opinions differ from the majority?
What are the practical implications of this ruling?