Arizona v. California
Headline: Court appoints a Special Master to reopen decree and resolve disputed boundary claims for Fort Mojave, Colorado River, and Fort Yuma Indian reservations, authorizing evidence gathering and shared party costs.
Holding: The Court appoints Robert B. McKay as Special Master to reopen the decree, empowered to manage filings, gather evidence, summon witnesses, and report, with parties bearing the Special Master’s costs.
- Reopens dispute over three reservation boundaries for further fact-finding.
- Special Master can summon witnesses and issue subpoenas to gather evidence.
- Parties will be charged costs and expenses in a Court-directed proportion.
Summary
Background
The Court ordered the appointment of Robert B. McKay, a law professor emeritus from New York, as Special Master to reopen a prior decree and decide disputed boundary claims involving the Fort Mojave, Colorado River, and Fort Yuma Indian Reservations. The order gives him authority to manage the next steps of the case, including setting times and conditions for any additional filings and directing what happens after the decree is reopened.
Reasoning
Faced with unresolved boundary disputes, the Court chose to delegate fact-finding and case management to a Special Master rather than deciding the disputes itself at this time. The order authorizes the Special Master to summon witnesses, issue subpoenas, take and call for evidence, and submit reports as appropriate. It also states that the Special Master may fix filing schedules and direct subsequent proceedings. The order specifies that the parties will bear the Special Master’s compensation and related expenses in proportions the Court will later determine. Justice Marshall did not participate in this order.
Real world impact
The appointment restarts the process for resolving the three reservation boundary disputes and centralizes evidence gathering under the Special Master. Parties to the case must respond to new filings, provide evidence, and may face subpoenas or witness requests. The costs of the Special Master’s work, including assistants and travel, will be charged to the parties in proportions the Court sets. This is a procedural step to develop the record and is not a final decision on the boundary claims.
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?