Illinois v. Missouri
Headline: Court appoints a federal judge as Special Master, giving him authority to manage filings, gather evidence and summon witnesses, and lets parties be charged for his expenses while Chief Justice may fill recess vacancies.
Holding: The Court appointed Senior Judge Harvey M. Johnsen as Special Master with authority to manage filings, summon witnesses, take evidence, and charge his expenses to the parties as directed by the Court.
- Gives the Special Master authority to summon witnesses and issue subpoenas.
- Makes the parties responsible for the Master's expenses and related costs.
- Allows the Chief Justice to name a replacement during Court recesses.
Summary
Background
This order names Senior Judge Harvey M. Johnsen as the Special Master in a pending case, replacing the prior Special Master who resigned. The order does not identify the parties by name in this text; it refers generally to “the parties.” The Special Master role is intended to assist the Court by handling various case-management tasks.
Reasoning
The Court granted the Special Master broad, specific powers: he may fix times and conditions for filing additional pleadings, direct further proceedings, summon witnesses, issue subpoenas, and take evidence he considers necessary. He is instructed to submit reports as he deems appropriate. The order also authorizes payment of his actual expenses and the compensation for his assistants, and it states those costs will be charged to the parties in proportions the Court later decides.
Real world impact
Practically, the Special Master will run parts of the case proceedings and can compel testimony and documents. The parties can expect to bear the financial burden of the Master’s work and related costs as the Court directs. The order also allows the Chief Justice to appoint a replacement if the Special Master’s position becomes vacant while the Court is in recess, so administration can continue without delay.
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?