Texas v. New Mexico

Background

The dispute arises from a motion by the court-appointed Special Master in the case between the State of Texas and the State of New Mexico asking for interim fees and disbursements. The Court granted the motion and allowed a total payment of $34,213.09. The dissent notes that the Special Master’s application sought $33,511 and that the parties did not oppose the request.

Reasoning

The central question was whether the Court should allow interim payment when the fee application gives little supporting information. The majority granted the allowance; the opinion itself provides no detailed explanation in the text provided. Chief Justice Burger, joined by Justices Blackmun and Rehnquist, dissented because the Special Master supplied minimal data: no breakdown of the four attorneys’ experience levels, no individual hourly rates, and only an average hourly charge of $140. The dissent argues this leaves the Court and the parties unable to judge whether rates are reasonable, especially for work by junior associates.

Real world impact

The immediate effect is that the Special Master will receive the approved interim payment. Litigants and the public get limited transparency about how that sum was calculated, making it harder for them to assess reasonableness. This ruling is an interim, procedural allowance and could be revisited or questioned later because it does not resolve final compensation questions.

Dissents or concurrances

Chief Justice Burger’s dissent stresses that a Special Master acts as a surrogate of the Court and that public-service considerations and routine client-level billing details should inform fee decisions; he would defer payment until adequate information is supplied.