United States v. State of Louisiana
Headline: Federal court allows supplemental proceedings, consolidates cases, and appoints a Special Master to gather evidence and run hearings, requiring the United States and Florida to share costs and follow his reports.
Holding: The Court granted the United States’ and Florida’s joint motion to initiate supplemental proceedings, consolidated the matters, and appointed Albert B. Maris as Special Master with broad authority to gather evidence and report.
- Gives a Special Master authority to gather evidence, summon witnesses, and issue subpoenas.
- Allows supplemental proceedings to proceed under the Special Master’s supervision.
- Costs for the Master and assistants will be charged to the parties as the Court decides.
Summary
Background
The United States and the State of Florida jointly asked the Court to start supplemental proceedings and to combine related matters. The Court granted those requests, consolidated the proceedings, and appointed the Honorable Albert B. Maris as Special Master to handle the supplemental case docketed as No. 52, Orig.
Reasoning
The Court authorized the Special Master to set filing schedules and conditions, summon witnesses, issue subpoenas, receive and take evidence, and submit reports as he deems appropriate. The order also allows the Master to have assistants and to be reimbursed for actual expenses. The Court directed that those expenses and related costs be charged to the parties in proportions the Court will later decide. The Chief Justice may name a replacement if the Special Master’s post becomes vacant during a Court recess.
Real world impact
The practical result is that most fact-finding and preliminary evidence gathering in this dispute will be run by the Special Master rather than by the Justices directly. The United States and Florida must cooperate with the Master’s subpoenas and evidence requests, and they will ultimately bear the costs of the Master and his staff as the Court directs. This order is procedural; it starts further fact-finding and is not a final decision on the case’s merits.
Dissents or concurrances
Justice Marshall did not take part in considering or deciding these matters, as the opinion notes.
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?