Arizona v. California Et Al.

Background

The Court ordered that George I. Haight, a lawyer from Chicago, be appointed as a special master in the case. The order gives him authority to summon witnesses, issue subpoenas, take evidence, and call for any additional proof he thinks necessary. He must prepare findings of fact, state his legal conclusions separately, and submit those plus a draft decree to the Court.

Reasoning

The Court directed the master to report the facts and proposed legal conclusions to help resolve the dispute. The master’s findings, conclusions, and recommended decree will be subject to the Court’s consideration, revision, or approval. The order allows the master to be reimbursed for actual expenses and to receive reasonable compensation fixed later by the Court. It also says the master’s costs and assistants’ pay, and the cost of printing his report, will be charged to the parties in proportions the Court will later decide. If the appointment is not accepted or the position becomes vacant during the Court’s recess, the Senior Associate Justice may designate a replacement.

Real world impact

The order puts a trusted third party in charge of gathering evidence and proposing a solution, which can speed fact-finding and ease the Court’s work. Witnesses may be compelled to appear and give testimony through subpoenas issued by the master. Parties should expect to share the master’s costs and may later see the master’s report influence the final decision. The Chief Justice did not take part in deciding this order, and the appointment is procedural rather than a final ruling on the case.