Louisiana v. Mississippi
Headline: Court appoints a retired state chief justice as Special Master to manage the Louisiana–Mississippi original dispute, authorizing evidence collection and assigning related costs to the parties.
Holding: The Court appointed retired Maine Chief Justice Vincent L. McKusick as Special Master with authority to manage filings and evidence, summon witnesses, issue subpoenas, and charge related costs to the parties.
- Gives a retired judge authority to manage filings and gather evidence.
- Allows the Special Master to summon witnesses and issue subpoenas.
- Makes the parties responsible for the Special Master’s costs as the Court directs.
Summary
Background
This case is an original dispute between the State of Louisiana and the State of Mississippi. On March 7, 1994, the Court ordered that the Honorable Vincent L. McKusick, a retired Chief Justice of Maine’s Supreme Judicial Court, be appointed Special Master in the matter. The short order notes earlier orders but centers on naming the Special Master and setting out his duties.
Reasoning
The Court empowered the Special Master to manage procedural and evidentiary steps in the case. Specifically, the order gives him authority to fix the time and conditions for filing additional pleadings, to direct subsequent proceedings, to summon witnesses, to issue subpoenas, and to take evidence that is introduced or that he considers necessary to call for. The Special Master is also directed to submit reports the Special Master deems appropriate. The Court therefore placed responsibility for scheduling and fact-gathering with an independent official.
Real world impact
In practical terms, the appointment centralizes evidence collection and scheduling under the Special Master, which shapes how the states will present and develop their factual records. The order states that the Special Master’s compensation, allowances, assistants’ pay, printing costs for the report, and other proper expenses, including travel, will be charged to the parties in proportions the Court will later direct, so the states will share the financial burden. This is a procedural step, not a final decision on the merits, and the dispute will continue after the Special Master’s work.
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?