State of Nebraska v. States of Wyoming and Colorado
Headline: Court orders payment of a Special Master’s interim fees, assessing Colorado, four nonparty amici, Nebraska, Wyoming, and the United States; one Justice dissents, objecting to charging costs to nonparty amici.
Holding:
- Requires Colorado to pay $25,000 toward the Special Master’s interim fees.
- Charges four nonparty amici $5,000 each for costs tied to their participation.
- Leaves remaining costs split: 40% Nebraska, 40% Wyoming, 20% United States.
Summary
Background
The dispute involves the State of Nebraska and the States of Wyoming and Colorado in an original action where a Special Master handled parts of the case. The Court had previously awarded interim compensation and asked parties and proposed intervenors or amici to comment on a suggested one-time assessment to help pay the Special Master’s fees and expenses. The Special Master concluded that participation by amici expanded the proceedings and increased costs.
Reasoning
The central question was how to pay the interim award to the Special Master and whether nonparty participants should bear part of the expense. The Court approved the Special Master’s interim award and allocated payments: Colorado was assessed $25,000; four proposed intervenors/amici (Basin Electric Power Cooperative, Central Nebraska Public Power and Irrigation District, the National Audubon Society, and the Platte River Whooping Crane Critical Habitat Maintenance Trust) were each assessed $5,000; and the remaining award was split 40% to Nebraska, 40% to Wyoming, and 20% to the United States. The Court noted that no party or proposed intervenor objected to including non-objecting amici in the assessment and therefore did not decide the broader legal question about assessing nonparties.
Real world impact
Practically, specific states and named nonparty groups must pay set amounts now to cover interim Special Master fees. The ruling applies to this interim payment in the ongoing proceeding rather than deciding the final authority to charge nonparties, so the allocation might not be a final resolution of that larger legal issue.
Dissents or concurrances
Justice White would have fully adopted the Special Master’s allocation. Justice Stevens dissented, arguing the Court lacks authority to assess costs against nonparties and criticizing reliance on their failure to object for justification.
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?