Article 3, Section 2, Clause 1 — Jurisdiction Over Categories Of Admiralty Cases

prev | next

Article III, Section 2, Clause 1:

The judicial Power shall extend to all Cases, in Law and Equity, arising under this Constitution, the Laws of the United States, and Treaties made, or which shall be made, under their Authority;—to all Cases affecting Ambassadors, other public Ministers and Consuls;—to all Cases of admiralty and maritime Jurisdiction; to Controversies to which the United States shall be a Party;—to Controversies between two or more States; between a State and Citizens of another State, between Citizens of different States,—between Citizens of the same State claiming Lands under Grants of different States, and between a State, or the Citizens thereof, and foreign States, Citizens or Subjects.

Beginning with Missouri v. Illinois & Chicago District,[1](https://www.law.cornell.edu/constitution-conan/article-3/section-2/clause-1/jurisdiction-over-categories-of-admiralty-cases#fn1art3 " 180 U.S. 208 (1901). ") which sustained jurisdiction to entertain an injunction suit to restrain the discharge of sewage into the Mississippi River, water rights, the use of water resources, and the like, have been a source of suits between states. Such suits have been especially frequent in the western states,[2](https://www.law.cornell.edu/constitution-conan/article-3/section-2/clause-1/jurisdiction-over-categories-of-admiralty-cases#fn2art3 " E.g. Montana v. Wyoming, 563 U.S. 368 (2011); Texas v. New Mexico and Colorado, No. 141, Orig., slip op. at 1 (U.S. Mar. 5, 2018); Texas v. New Mexico, No. 65, Orig., slip op. at 1 (U.S. Dec. 14, 2020). ") where water is in short supply, but they have not been confined to any one region.[3](https://www.law.cornell.edu/constitution-conan/article-3/section-2/clause-1/jurisdiction-over-categories-of-admiralty-cases#fn3art3 " See, e.g., Florida v. Georgia (2018 Florida), No. 142, Orig., slip op. at 1 (U.S. June 27, 2018) ( “This case concerns the proper apportionment of the water of an interstate river basin. Florida, a downstream State, brought this lawsuit against Georgia, an upstream State, claiming that Georgia has denied it an equitable share of the basin’s waters.” ). ") In Kansas v. Colorado,[4](https://www.law.cornell.edu/constitution-conan/article-3/section-2/clause-1/jurisdiction-over-categories-of-admiralty-cases#fn4art3 " 206 U.S. 46 (1907). See also Idaho ex rel. Evans v. Oregon and Washington, 444 U.S. 380 (1980). ") the Court established the principle of the equitable division of river or water resources between conflicting state interests.[5](https://www.law.cornell.edu/constitution-conan/article-3/section-2/clause-1/jurisdiction-over-categories-of-admiralty-cases#fn5art3 " See also 2018 Florida, slip op. at 10 ( “Where, as here, the Court is asked to resolve an interstate water dispute raising questions beyond the interpretation of specific language of an interstate compact, the doctrine of equitable apportionment governs our inquiry.” (citing Colorado v. New Mexico, 459 U.S. 176, 183 (1982)); Virginia v. Maryland, 540 U.S. 56, 74 n.9 (2003) ( “Federal common law governs interstate bodies of water, ensuring that the water is equitably apportioned between the States and bodies of water, ensuring that the water is equitably apportioned between the States and that neither State harms the other’s interest in the river.” ). ")

In the 1931 case, New Jersey v. New York,[6](https://www.law.cornell.edu/constitution-conan/article-3/section-2/clause-1/jurisdiction-over-categories-of-admiralty-cases#fn6art3 " 283 U.S. 336 (1931). ") New Jersey sought to enjoin New York for diverting water into the Hudson River watershed for New York’s use in such a way as to diminish the flow of the Delaware River in New Jersey, injure its shad fisheries, and harm the saline contents of the Delaware River. Justice Oliver Wendell Holmes, writing for the majority, explained:

A river is more than an amenity, it is a treasure. It offers a necessity of life that must be rationed among those who have power over it. New York has the physical power to cut off all the water within its jurisdiction. But clearly the exercise of such a power to the destruction of the interest of lower States could not be tolerated. And on the other hand equally little could New Jersey be permitted to require New York to give up its power altogether in order that the river might come down to it undiminished. Both States have real and substantial interests in the River that must be reconciled as best they may.[7](https://www.law.cornell.edu/constitution-conan/article-3/section-2/clause-1/jurisdiction-over-categories-of-admiralty-cases#fn7art3 " Id. at 342. See also Nebraska v. Wyoming, 325 U.S. 589 (1945); Idaho ex rel. Evans v. Oregon, 462 U.S. 1017 (1983). In Ohio v. Wyandotte Chemicals Corp., 401 U.S. 493 (1971), the Court held it had jurisdiction of a suit by a state against citizens of other states to abate a nuisance allegedly caused by the dumping of mercury into streams that ultimately run into Lake Erie, but it declined to permit the filing because the presence of complex scientific issues made the case more appropriate for first resolution in a district court. See also Texas v. New Mexico, 462 U.S. 554 (1983); Nevada v. United States, 463 U.S. 110 (1983) ")

In Florida v. Georgia, the Supreme Court issued two opinions concerning how to apportion water from an interstate river basin known as the Apalachicola-Chattahoochee-Flint (ACF) River basin.[8](https://www.law.cornell.edu/constitution-conan/article-3/section-2/clause-1/jurisdiction-over-categories-of-admiralty-cases#fn8art3 " 2018 Florida, slip op. at 1; Florida v. Georgia (2021 Florida), No. 142, Orig., slip op. at 1 (U.S. Apr. 1, 2021). ") Florida, the downstream state, alleged that Georgia overconsumed the ACF basin’s waters, leading to the collapse of its local oyster industry and harming Florida’s river ecosystems.[9](https://www.law.cornell.edu/constitution-conan/article-3/section-2/clause-1/jurisdiction-over-categories-of-admiralty-cases#fn9art3 " 2021 Florida, slip op. at 5. ") After agreeing to exercise original jurisdiction, the Supreme Court appointed a Special Master to take evidence and issue a report with recommendations on how to resolve the dispute.[10](https://www.law.cornell.edu/constitution-conan/article-3/section-2/clause-1/jurisdiction-over-categories-of-admiralty-cases#fn10art3 " See 2018 Florida, slip op. at 6. ") The Court explained that “given the complexity of many water-division cases, the need to secure equitable solutions, the need to respect the sovereign status of the States, and the importance of finding flexible solutions to multi-factor problems, we typically appoint a Special Master and benefit from detailed factual findings.” [11](https://www.law.cornell.edu/constitution-conan/article-3/section-2/clause-1/jurisdiction-over-categories-of-admiralty-cases#fn11art3 " Id. at 14. ")

The Special Master in Florida v. Georgia recommended that the Court dismiss the case because the relief Florida sought—a limitation on Georgia’s consumptive use of ACF Basin waters—would not redress the alleged injury without also joining the Army Corps of Engineers (Corps) as party to the case.[12](https://www.law.cornell.edu/constitution-conan/article-3/section-2/clause-1/jurisdiction-over-categories-of-admiralty-cases#fn12art3 " Id. at 7. ") Although the Corps operated a dam that controlled the amount of water flowing southward into Florida, it was not a defendant in the suit because it was protected by sovereign immunity.[13](https://www.law.cornell.edu/constitution-conan/article-3/section-2/clause-1/jurisdiction-over-categories-of-admiralty-cases#fn13art3 " Id. at 2–3, 6. ") The Special Master recommended dismissing the case based on the “single, discrete” conclusion that Florida’s injury could not be redressed without a judicial decree that was binding on both Georgia and the Corps as defendants.[14](https://www.law.cornell.edu/constitution-conan/article-3/section-2/clause-1/jurisdiction-over-categories-of-admiralty-cases#fn14art3 " Id. at 7 (emphasis in original). ") Florida lodged exceptions to the Special Master’s report, and, in a 5-4 opinion issued in 2018, the Supreme Court declined to adopt the Special Master’s recommendation of dismissal.[15](https://www.law.cornell.edu/constitution-conan/article-3/section-2/clause-1/jurisdiction-over-categories-of-admiralty-cases#fn15art3 " Id. at 15. ")

At the outset of its 2018 opinion, the Supreme Court summarized “several related but more specific sets of principles” that govern the doctrine of equitable apportionment in interstate disputes between two states.[16](https://www.law.cornell.edu/constitution-conan/article-3/section-2/clause-1/jurisdiction-over-categories-of-admiralty-cases#fn16art3 " 2018 Florida, slip op. at 10. Specifically, when asked to resolve such a dispute under the doctrine of equitable apportionment, the Court should consider the following principles: (1) that the two states “possess an equal right to make a reasonable use of the waters of the stream” ; (2) that “the Court’s ‘effort always is to secure an equitable apportionment without quibbling over formulas’ . . . [and w]here '[b]oth States have real and substantial interests in the River,’ those interests ‘must be reconciled as best they may be’” ; (3) that, “in light of the sovereign status and ‘equal dignity’ of States, . . . the complaining State must demonstrate that it has suffered a ‘threatened invasion of rights’ that is ‘of serious magnitude’” ; and (4) that “where a complaining State meets its ‘initial burden of showing ‘real or substantial injury,’ this Court, recalling that equitable apportionment is ‘flexible,’ not ‘formulaic,’ will seek to ‘arrive at a just and equitable apportionment of an interstate stream’ by ‘consider[ing] ‘all relevant factors.’” Id. at 11–14 (citations omitted). ") The Court remanded the case to the Special Master assigned to the dispute, concluding that he had applied too strict a standard on the issue of redressability.[17](https://www.law.cornell.edu/constitution-conan/article-3/section-2/clause-1/jurisdiction-over-categories-of-admiralty-cases#fn17art3 " Id. at 15. ") The Court advised the Special Master that, “[c]onsistent with the principles that guide our inquiry in this context, answers need not be ‘mathematically precise or based on definite present and future conditions.’ Approximation and reasonable estimates may prove ‘necessary to protect the equitable rights of a State.’ . . . Flexibility and approximation are often the keys to success in our ef