Nebraska v. Wyoming
Headline: Court orders payment of a neutral examiner’s interim fees and assigns costs to a state, four nonparty groups, and several governments with specified dollar assessments.
Holding: The Court approved payment of the Special Master’s interim fees and ordered Colorado, four nonparty groups, Nebraska, Wyoming, and the United States to pay specified portions and dollar amounts.
- Four nonparty amici each pay $5,000 toward the Special Master's fees.
- Colorado pays $25,000; Nebraska, Wyoming, and the United States split the remainder 40/40/20.
- This is an interim payment during ongoing proceedings and could be revisited.
Summary
Background
A neutral examiner (Special Master) asked to be paid interim fees and reimbursed for expenses after participating in this original action. The State of Colorado is a party, and four proposed intervening nonparty groups—the Basin Electric Power Cooperative, Central Nebraska Public Power and Irrigation District, the National Audubon Society, and the Platte River Whooping Crane Trust—were involved as amici. The Court allowed comments about a suggested one-time special assessment of costs to those intervenors and amici, and the Special Master found their participation expanded and increased the cost of the proceedings.
Reasoning
Because none of the named parties or the four proposed intervenors objected to including nonobjecting amici in the assessment, the Court did not resolve the broader legal question of whether costs may be charged to nonparties. Instead the Court approved an interim award and allocated payment responsibility: Colorado is assessed $25,000; each of the four named nonparty groups is assessed $5,000; and the remaining amount is split 40% to Nebraska, 40% to Wyoming, and 20% to the United States. Justice White would have followed the Special Master’s recommendation on allocation.
Real world impact
The order requires immediate payments from the listed state, governments, and nonparty groups as specified. It treats this as an interim award in an ongoing proceeding, so the allocation and assessments are not necessarily final and could change on further review.
Dissents or concurrances
Justice Stevens dissented from assessing costs against amici, arguing the Court lacks authority to charge nonparties and that refusing to hear objections does not justify the assessment.
Opinions 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?