California v. Washington
Headline: Alcohol-related interstate dispute halted as Court denies California permission to file an original complaint against Washington, blocking the state’s attempt to bring a Twenty-First Amendment challenge in the Supreme Court.
Holding:
- Denies California permission to file its original complaint against Washington.
- Prevents this particular Twenty-First Amendment challenge from proceeding in the Court.
- Leaves the underlying interstate dispute unresolved by this order.
Summary
Background
The States of California and Washington are the parties named in an original case captioned No. 12. The record shows oral argument took place October 15–16, 1958, and the decision was entered November 10, 1958. Attorneys for California and Washington appeared, and the State of New York filed a supporting brief as amicus curiae. The filing and opinion text reference the Twenty-First Amendment, §2, and several earlier Supreme Court decisions.
Reasoning
The central procedural question was whether California should be allowed to file a bill of complaint in the Supreme Court against Washington. The Court resolved that question by a per curiam order. The single-line opinion states: “The motion for leave to file bill of complaint is denied.” The opinion lists the Twenty-First Amendment provision and several prior cases but does not include an extended published explanation of reasoning in the text provided.
Real world impact
As a direct result of the order, California’s request to bring this original complaint against Washington was not permitted to proceed in the Supreme Court at that time. The denial is an interlocutory procedural ruling reflected in the Court’s short per curiam entry. Because the opinion is an order denying leave to file, it does not resolve the substantive merits of the underlying dispute between the States, nor does the short opinion itself create broader legal holdings beyond the denial.
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?