Colorado v. New Mexico
Headline: Court appoints a senior federal judge as Special Master to manage further proceedings, gather evidence, subpoena witnesses, and requires parties to bear the Master’s costs as later directed by the Court.
Holding: The Court appointed a senior federal judge as Special Master, empowered him to manage filings, gather evidence, issue subpoenas, and directed that his expenses be charged to the parties as the Court later specifies.
- Authorizes a judge to manage filings, summon witnesses, and take evidence.
- Orders parties to bear the Master's expenses and related costs as the Court directs.
- Allows Chief Justice to appoint a replacement Master during Court recesses.
Summary
Background
The Court ordered that the Honorable Ewing I. Kerr, a senior federal judge, be appointed Special Master in this case. The order gives him power to set the timing and rules for any additional filings and to direct later court proceedings. The order also refers to an earlier order in this matter (see 439 U. S. 975).
Reasoning
The Court granted the Special Master a range of practical tools to manage the case: he may summon witnesses, issue subpoenas, receive and take evidence, and submit reports as he deems appropriate. The Master may also set the time and conditions for further pleadings and other steps the Court finds necessary. The order specifies that the Master will be allowed his actual expenses and that allowances for him, his assistants, and costs such as printing the report are proper expenses of the case.
Real world impact
Those expenses—payments to the Master, his technical, stenographic, and clerical assistants, and other proper costs—are to be charged to and borne by the parties in proportions the Court will later decide. The order also provides that if the Special Master position becomes vacant while the Court is in recess, the Chief Justice may designate a replacement who has the same authority as an appointment made by the Court. This is a procedural order focused on managing the case rather than a final decision on its 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?