New Hampshire v. Maine
Headline: Coastal boundary dispute settled: Court allows New Hampshire and Maine’s agreed map to take effect, changing who regulates lobster fishing and clarifying the maritime border between the states.
Holding: The Court held that it may enter the two states' consent decree fixing their coastal boundary under the 1740 decree, finding the agreement consistent with the Court's judicial duty and not requiring Congress's consent.
- Lets the states' agreed coastal boundary take effect, changing who enforces fishing rules.
- Affirms courts can accept states' settlements that define long‑existing boundaries.
- Raises concern that legal rules about “middle of the river” may be bypassed.
Summary
Background
New Hampshire brought a suit against Maine to locate the lateral marine boundary between Portsmouth Harbor and Gosport Harbor in the Isles of Shoals after disputes over lobster fishing and differing state rules. The parties relied on a 1740 decree by King George II that fixed the boundary long ago, but disagreed about terms like the “Mouth of Piscataqua River,” the “Middle of the River,” and the “Middle of the Harbour.” The two states’ attorneys general agreed on a consent decree that defined those terms and filed it for the Court’s approval.
Reasoning
The central question was whether the Supreme Court could accept the states’ agreed boundary or whether the Court had to make its own independent factual and legal findings. Relying on the record and on the 1740 decree, the Court concluded that entering the consent decree would be consistent with its constitutional judicial duty and would simply give effect to an already fixed boundary. The Court also rejected New Hampshire’s argument that the agreement required Congress’s approval under the Compact Clause because the decree merely locates an ancient boundary and does not increase state power.
Real world impact
The Court ordered the consent decree entered, so the states’ agreed line becomes the controlling boundary for enforcement and regulation, including lobster fishing rules and licensing. The ruling lets the states’ settlement resolve who governs the seabed and marine resources in the area.
Dissents or concurrances
Justice White (joined by two others) dissented, warning that the Court should not accept the parties’ stipulation about what “middle of the river” means (thalweg versus geographic middle) without applying legal principles itself, because the agreement could shift territory between the states.
Opinions in 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?