IDAHO Ex Rel. ANDRUS, GOVERNOR, Et Al. v. OREGON Et Al.

Background

The State of Idaho asked the Court for permission to file a direct lawsuit seeking a court declaration that Idaho is entitled to an equitable portion of the upriver anadromous fishery of the Columbia River Basin. Idaho also sought a determination of that portion based on the evidence, plus costs and appropriate incidental relief. The Court received written submissions and heard oral argument from the Attorneys General of the States before ruling on Idaho’s motion for leave to file a bill of complaint. Oregon and Washington were named as opposing states, and the United States was mentioned as a possible necessary party.

Reasoning

The Court concluded that it has original and exclusive authority to hear the case to the extent Idaho asks the Court to declare and determine Idaho’s equitable portion of the upriver anadromous fishery, and it granted leave to file a bill of complaint for those specific claims. The Court denied the motion in all other respects. The order explicitly states that it is not a judgment that the complaint, as allowed, states a claim that will necessarily win relief after full consideration. The Court also left open the question whether the United States is an indispensable party if the United States does not enter an appearance.

Real world impact

Idaho may now proceed to have the Court consider its claimed share of the upriver fishery through evidence and formal pleadings. Oregon and Washington were directed to file answers or otherwise plead within 60 days and process was ordered to issue. The decision starts an interstate court proceeding but does not finally decide who is entitled to what share, and the role of the United States may be determined later.