Kansas v. Colorado
Headline: Court allows Special Master’s interim fees of $75,973.75, orders payment split 40% Kansas, 40% Colorado, 20% United States, while a Justice warns costs may be escalating.
Holding: The Court grants the Special Master's motion and awards $75,973.75 in interim fees and expenses, to be paid 40% by Kansas, 40% by Colorado, and 20% by the United States.
- Requires Kansas, Colorado, and the United States to pay allocated shares of Special Master's fees.
- Awards $75,973.75 to the Special Master for an interim period in 1989–1990.
- Signals judicial concern about rising fees and need to assess reasonableness.
Summary
Background
The Special Master requested interim fees and expenses and the Court granted that motion. The Court awarded $75,973.75 for services covering November 1, 1989 through September 16, 1990. The order directs payment split among the parties: 40 percent by Kansas, 40 percent by Colorado, and 20 percent by the United States. The opinion also refers to an earlier order in this dispute. Justice Blackmun wrote separately to express concerns.
Reasoning
The core question was whether the requested fees and expenses should be allowed for this interim period. The Court approved the payment on this occasion even though Justice Blackmun noted that some requested charges appear close to or may exceed allowable limits. He emphasized that the Court must decide whether fees are reasonable, not merely rely on the parties' consent. Because no party objected this time, Justice Blackmun did not formally dissent from the order.
Real world impact
The ruling requires the named governments to pay their allocated shares now and gives the Special Master nearly $76,000 for the stated months. Because the award is interim, this is a temporary payment, and concerns raised by the Justice signal that future fee requests may receive closer scrutiny. The decision affects how much state and federal governments pay in this litigation and may influence oversight of Special Master billing going forward.
Dissents or concurrances
Justice Blackmun referenced earlier dissents in related cases and warned about escalating fees and personnel costs, underscoring the Court's duty to ensure fees are reasonable even when parties agree.
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?