Texas v. Louisiana
Headline: Final boundary between Texas and Louisiana is fixed, with the Court establishing exact river and offshore lines, resolving island ownership, and ordering certified maps filed with each state’s land office.
Holding:
- Officially fixes the land and offshore boundary between Texas and Louisiana.
- Clarifies which government holds title to islands in each Sabine River half.
- Requires certified boundary maps be filed with each state's land office.
Summary
Background
The dispute was between the States of Texas and Louisiana over where their boundary runs from the Sabine River down to the Gulf. The Court gave effect to its June 14, 1976 opinion and relied on maps and exhibits created by a Special Master, including United States Geological Survey quadrangle maps signed by representatives of both states.
Reasoning
The central question was the exact course of the interstate boundary on the river, through Sabine Lake and Pass, and offshore into coastal waters. The Court described a precise line that follows the federal line shown on surveyed maps along the Sabine River (noting older oxbow alignments where appropriate), continues through Middle Pass and Sabine Lake to the seaward end of the jetties, and then sets an offshore bearing (South 13°44'45.8" east true) to Louisiana’s seaward grant limit. The decree also states which government entities hold or do not hold title to islands in the river halves. The Court ordered the Special Master’s Exhibits 1–14 certified as the boundary and directed both states to deposit certified maps and the decree with their land offices.
Real world impact
The ruling fixes the official boundary line on maps and in state land records, clarifies island ownership in the Sabine River halves, and defines the offshore boundary bearing to the seaward limits stated. The decree allocates costs according to party contributions, provides for return of unused funds, and discharges the Special Master once his duties are complete.
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?