Illinois v. Michigan
Headline: Court grants reopening of a 1930 decree, allows a business group to file an amicus brief, appoints a special master to hold hearings and collect evidence, and directs parties to bear related costs.
Holding:
- Allows business group to file an amicus brief in the reopened cases.
- Appoints a court-appointed investigator to hold hearings and gather evidence.
- Requires parties to bear the special master’s expenses as the Court directs.
Summary
Background
A business group, the Chicago Association of Commerce and Industry, asked permission to file a brief supporting one side in several original cases. The complainants in those cases filed an amended request to reopen a court decree issued April 21, 1930. The Court granted the motions to allow the business group’s brief, to reopen the earlier decree in Nos. 2, 3, and 4, Original, and to permit a new bill of complaint in No. 15, Original.
Reasoning
To handle the reopened matters, the Court appointed Honorable Albert B. Maris, a United States Senior Circuit Judge, as a special master in each cause. The special master has authority to summon witnesses, issue subpoenas, receive and take evidence, and call for additional evidence he deems necessary. He is directed to hold hearings promptly and to submit reports as needed. The Court allowed him to be reimbursed for actual expenses and authorized payment for his assistants and printing costs.
Real world impact
This order starts a new fact-finding phase rather than deciding the case’s final outcome. The special master’s hearings and reports will gather testimony and documents that could change what the court decides later. The Court also made clear that the master’s costs and related expenses will be charged to the parties in proportions the Court will decide, so parties should expect to share the financial burden of the reopened proceedings.
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?