South Dakota v. Nebraska
Headline: Court appoints a senior federal judge as Special Master to manage filings, summon witnesses, issue subpoenas, take evidence, and require parties to share resulting costs; a motion to join is referred to the Special Master.
Holding:
- A judge will manage scheduling, evidence, and filings for this case.
- Special Master can summon witnesses and issue subpoenas to collect evidence.
- Parties must bear the Special Master’s expenses and related costs as ordered.
Summary
Background
The Court ordered that the Honorable Oren Harris, a senior federal judge on the United States District Court for the Western District of Arkansas, be appointed Special Master in this case. The order gives him responsibility to set schedules and to oversee further proceedings. The Court also referred a motion by Robert J. Foley and others asking to join the case to the Special Master for consideration. An earlier related order in the record is noted.
Reasoning
The order specifies the Special Master’s powers. He may fix the time and conditions for filing additional pleadings and direct subsequent proceedings. He may summon witnesses, issue subpoenas, and take evidence that is introduced or that he deems necessary to call for. He is directed to submit such reports as he deems appropriate. The order allows reimbursement of his expenses and charges for his assistants and printed reports to be borne by the parties in proportions the Court will later set. If the Special Master’s position becomes vacant during the Court’s recess, the Chief Justice may appoint a replacement with the same effect.
Real world impact
This is a procedural order that determines how this litigation will be handled going forward. A neutral judge will control scheduling, evidence-gathering, and preliminary reports. Parties should expect subpoenas and may be required to share the costs of the Special Master’s work as the Court later directs. The motion to join has been sent to the Special Master for decision.
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?