Kansas v. Colorado
Headline: Court awards nearly $76,000 in interim fees to a Special Master, dividing payment 40% to Kansas, 40% to Colorado, and 20% to the United States while a Justice warns fees may be excessive.
Holding: In an interim order, the Court granted the Special Master $75,973.75 for November 1, 1989–September 16, 1990, to be paid 40% by Kansas, 40% by Colorado, and 20% by the United States.
- Requires Kansas, Colorado, and the federal government to cover interim Special Master fees as ordered.
- Makes an interim payment of $75,973.75 to the Special Master for the stated period.
- Signals judicial concern about rising fees and personnel, though the award stands.
Summary
Background
The Special Master asked the Court for interim fees and expenses covering November 1, 1989 through September 16, 1990. The Court granted that motion and awarded $75,973.75, to be paid 40% by Kansas, 40% by Colorado, and 20% by the United States. One Justice wrote separately with reservations but did not formally dissent.
Reasoning
The central question was whether to allow the requested interim fees and how to divide payment among the parties. The Court approved the Special Master’s request and set the exact amount and split. A Justice noted that some requested fees and expenses "come close — if they do not exceed — the limits of allowability" and referred to past opinions raising similar concerns. Because no party objected on this occasion, the Justice did not register a formal dissent, even while expressing a lack of enthusiasm for increasing amounts and personnel billed.
Real world impact
The immediate effect is that the Special Master will be paid nearly $76,000 for the specified period, and the financial burden is allocated among the two states and the federal government in the stated proportions. This is an interim award for fees and expenses, not a final judgment on the underlying dispute, so future fee requests or objections could change how much is ultimately paid or who bears the costs.
Dissents or concurrances
Justice Blackmun provided a cautionary separate statement. He warned that some fee items risk exceeding reasonable limits, emphasized the Court’s duty to ensure reasonableness even when parties consent, and signaled concern about escalating fees and personnel in this case.
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?