Illinois v. Michigan
Headline: Several states win permission to reopen a 1930 decree as the Court allows new complaints, accepts an amicus brief, and appoints a special master to hold hearings and gather evidence.
Holding:
- Allows states to reopen and litigate the 1930 decree through expedited hearings.
- Appoints a special master who can subpoena witnesses and take evidence.
- Authorizes charging the master’s expenses and related costs against the parties.
Summary
Background
The State of Illinois moved for leave to file a new complaint, and other states asked to reopen a decree entered on April 21, 1930. Multiple states and the Chicago Association of Commerce and Industry participated, and the United States filed a brief as amicus. The Court considered motions across several original cases involving Illinois and other States and parties.
Reasoning
In a brief per curiam order, the Court granted the Chicago Association’s motion to file an amicus brief, allowed the complainants’ amended application to reopen the 1930 decree, and granted leave to file the new bill of complaint. The Court appointed Judge Albert B. Maris as special master with authority to summon witnesses, issue subpoenas, receive and take evidence, hold hearings promptly, and submit reports. The master may employ technical, stenographic, and clerical assistants and was allowed his actual expenses.
Real world impact
The decision moves the dispute into a fact-finding phase under the special master, enabling hearings, subpoenas, and documentary evidence to be collected. The Court directed that the master’s allowances, assistants’ pay, printing costs, and other proper expenses be charged against the parties in proportions the Court will later decide. This order is procedural and not a final decision on the underlying rights or claims; the merits will be resolved after the master’s proceedings and reports.
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?