Illinois v. Missouri
The Court issued a procedural order appointing Judge Harvey M. Johnsen as the new Special Master in an ongoing original-jurisdiction case, replacing a master who had resigned.
The order also spells out the new Special Master's powers to manage the proceedings, take evidence, and submit reports, and lets the Chief Justice name a replacement if the position becomes vacant again during a recess.
How it got here: This is a continuation of a pending original-jurisdiction Supreme Court case, with prior orders dating back to 1965.
The Case in Depth
What happened
This is a procedural order in an ongoing Supreme Court case (referencing earlier orders dating back to 1965-1966) that requires a Special Master to manage pretrial proceedings, take evidence, and report findings to the Court. The prior Special Master, Sam E. Whitaker, had resigned, creating a need for a replacement.
The question before the Court
Who would take over as Special Master in this long-running original-jurisdiction case after the prior master resigned?
Why it matters
This order keeps a complex, multi-year case moving forward by ensuring there is always someone empowered to manage evidence-taking and reporting. It matters mainly to the parties involved and to the functioning of the Court's process for resolving disputes between states or other original-jurisdiction matters, not to the public generally.
What changes now
The newly appointed Special Master, Judge Johnsen, will take over managing pleadings, evidence, and reports in the underlying case, which remains pending before the Supreme Court. This is a purely administrative order, not a decision on the merits of the underlying dispute, and the case will continue under the Special Master's supervision until he submits his findings to the Court.
What this does not decide
This order does not resolve or address any substantive issue in the underlying case. It is solely an administrative appointment of a new Special Master and a description of that master's powers and compensation arrangements.
How the Court got there
The legal reasoning, step by step
- The Court exercised its administrative authority over an original-jurisdiction case to fill a vacancy in the position of Special Master, a court-appointed official who manages fact-finding in complex cases.
- The Court appointed a sitting federal appellate judge to the role and granted him broad authority to set deadlines, summon witnesses, issue subpoenas, and gather evidence.
- The Court allocated the costs of the Special Master's work, including expenses and staff compensation, to be split among the parties in proportions the Court would decide later.
- The Court built in a contingency plan, giving the Chief Justice power to appoint a successor without needing the full Court to act if the position became vacant while the Court was in recess.