Louisiana v. Mississippi

Background

Louisiana, represented here as a State, intervened in a private lawsuit about who owns land on an island in the Mississippi River and also filed a third-party claim that the island is part of Louisiana. Louisiana asked the Court for leave to file an original lawsuit against Mississippi to resolve the boundary dispute. The Court denied that motion by issuing an order denying leave to file the bill of complaint.

Reasoning

The main question was whether the States’ boundary dispute should proceed directly in the Supreme Court under its original jurisdiction. The opinion text states that controversies between States are within the Court’s exclusive original jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. §1251(a). Nevertheless, the Court denied Louisiana’s request; the excerpt does not include the majority’s full explanation for that denial. In dissent, Justice White (joined by Justices Stevens and Scalia) argued the dispute plainly belongs here and that denying leave improperly blocks a sovereign State from having the Court decide a State-versus-State boundary disagreement.

Real world impact

Because the Court declined to let Louisiana bring an original action here, the boundary question will not be resolved by the Supreme Court at this stage. The practical consequences affect the two States and the private parties in the river-island dispute: the island’s ownership and legal boundaries remain unsettled by this Court’s action. This order is procedural and not a final decision on which State owns the land.

Dissents or concurrances

Justice White’s dissent emphasizes that the Court should accept and adjudicate State boundary disputes, would have granted leave to file, and criticizes using possible private litigation outcomes to deny a State its chosen forum.