Tennessee v. Arkansas
Headline: Court appoints a senior federal judge as special master to manage filings, gather evidence, summon witnesses, issue subpoenas, and charge costs among the parties, with the Chief Justice able to replace him during recess.
Holding:
- A judge can summon witnesses, issue subpoenas, and gather evidence for the Court.
- The Special Master’s fees and related costs may be charged to the parties.
- Chief Justice may appoint a replacement during Court recesses.
Summary
Background
The Court appointed the Honorable Earl R. Larson, Senior Judge of the United States District Court for the District of Minnesota, to serve as Special Master in this case. The brief order refers to an earlier order (see ante, p. 812) and gives the newly appointed judge authority to manage parts of the litigation, including setting schedules and conditions for additional filings.
Reasoning
The order lists the powers the Court granted the Special Master: to fix the time and conditions for filing additional pleadings, to direct subsequent proceedings, to summon witnesses, to issue subpoenas, and to take evidence both that is offered and that he deems necessary to call for. The Master is directed to submit such reports as he deems appropriate. The text does not explain factual reasons for the appointment; it focuses on the specific procedural authorities and responsibilities given to the Special Master.
Real world impact
A court-appointed judge will manage scheduling, collect testimony, and assemble evidence for the Court. The Special Master may incur actual expenses; his allowances, assistants’ pay, printing costs, and other proper expenses are to be charged against and borne by the parties in proportions the Court will later direct. If the Special Master’s position becomes vacant during a Court recess, the Chief Justice may designate a replacement who will have the same effect as an original appointment. This order is procedural and does not decide the case’s underlying merits.
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?