United States v. Louisiana
Headline: Court accepts Special Master’s recommendations and orders a formal baseline along Louisiana’s coast to measure state territorial waters under the Submerged Lands Act, directing parties to file a decree or return disputes to the Master.
Holding: The Court overruled both the United States’ and Louisiana’s exceptions, accepted the Special Master’s recommendations, and ordered the parties to file a decree establishing a coastal baseline for measuring Louisiana’s territorial waters.
- Creates an agreed baseline to measure Louisiana’s territorial waters under the Submerged Lands Act.
- Requires the United States and Louisiana to prepare and file a formal decree.
- Allows the Special Master to hold hearings and resolve remaining disputes if parties cannot agree.
Summary
Background
The dispute involved the United States and the State of Louisiana and arose from a report filed July 31, 1974, by Special Master Walter P. Armstrong, Jr. Both the United States and Louisiana filed objections to that report. The Special Master proposed how to establish a baseline along the entire Louisiana coast to measure the extent of the State’s territorial waters under the Submerged Lands Act.
Reasoning
The Court considered the Special Master’s report and the exceptions filed by both governments. The Court overruled the exceptions from the United States and from Louisiana and accepted the Special Master’s recommendations. The justices directed the parties to prepare and file a formal decree that sets the baseline from which Louisiana’s territorial waters will be measured. The Court also provided a fallback: if the parties cannot agree on the decree, they must refer remaining disputes back to the Special Master.
Real world impact
The order starts a formal process to fix the coastal baseline that will be used to determine the reach of Louisiana’s territorial waters under federal law. The State and the Federal Government must work together to draft a decree for the Court to enter. If they cannot agree, the Special Master is authorized to hold hearings, take evidence, and make further recommendations to the Court.
Dissents or concurrances
Two justices, Mr. Justice Douglas and Mr. Justice Marshall, did not take part in the consideration or decision of this case.
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?