Kentucky v. Indiana
Headline: Court appoints Judge Robert Yan Pelt as Special Master to manage filings and evidence, charges parties for the Master’s expenses, and allows the Chief Justice to name a replacement during court recess.
Holding:
- A Special Master will control evidence and witness testimony in the case.
- Parties must pay the Master’s expenses and other related costs as the Court directs.
- Chief Justice can appoint a new Special Master if the post becomes vacant during recess.
Summary
Background
The Court ordered that the Honorable Robert Yan Pelt, a senior federal judge, be appointed Special Master in this case. The order gives him authority to set times and conditions for filing additional papers, to direct later proceedings, and to handle the case’s evidence and testimony. The motion by Public Service Company of Indiana, Inc., for leave to intervene was referred to this Special Master.
Reasoning
The Court granted the Special Master broad powers to manage fact-gathering: he may summon witnesses, issue subpoenas, and take evidence both that is presented and that he thinks necessary to call for. He is directed to submit reports as he deems appropriate. The order also specifies that the Master may be reimbursed for actual expenses and that allowances and related costs will be charged to the parties in proportions the Court will later decide. If the Master’s post becomes vacant during a court recess, the Chief Justice may designate a replacement with the same authority.
Real world impact
Practically, a single judge will now run much of the case’s evidence-gathering and procedural work, and the involved parties will ultimately bear the Master’s costs as allocated by the Court. This is a procedural management order rather than a final decision on the case’s merits, so its supervisory and cost-allocation effects are immediate but do not decide the underlying dispute.
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?