Tennessee v. Arkansas
Headline: Court fixes the Tennessee–Arkansas boundary at Elmot Bar-Island 30 in the Mississippi River, setting precise coordinates for the state line and ordering the states to split the case costs equally.
Holding:
- Fixes the exact Tennessee–Arkansas state line around Elmot Bar-Island 30 by coordinates.
- Requires the states to split the costs of the proceeding equally.
Summary
Background
A dispute between the States of Tennessee and Arkansas concerned where their shared boundary runs in the Elmot Bar-Island 30 sector of the Mississippi River. The matter reached this Court with a Special Master’s report that included Appendix E and Exhibit A, which describe the disputed line and rely on the 1973–1975 Mississippi River Hydrographic Survey. Exhibit E and Exhibit A were specifically incorporated into the Court’s decree.
Reasoning
The Court addressed the practical question of where the state line should lie in the abandoned Fletcher Bend Channel near Elmot Bar-Island 30. Relying on the Special Master’s descriptions and the hydrographic survey, the Court fixed the boundary by geodetic coordinates listed in Exhibit A and described the line as following the fixed (dead) thalweg and the last steamboat navigation course in the abandoned channel. The description begins at Point P-1 at the head of the Elmot Bar-Island 30 Chute Channel and runs through points P-2 to P-32 to the foot of that chute channel, with specific latitudes and longitudes for each point.
Real world impact
The ruling makes the Tennessee–Arkansas boundary in this specific river sector clear and final as described in the decree. The Court’s decree incorporates the surveys and maps into the official description, so the listed coordinates and point references will govern the boundary location for that sector. The opinion also orders that the costs of this proceeding be divided equally between the two States.
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?