Montana v. Wyoming and North Dakota
| Docket No. | Argument | Opinion | Vote | Author | Term |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 137-original | Jan 10, 2011 | May 2, 2011 | 7-1 | Thomas | OT 2010 |
Holding: Original; Montana has failed to state a claim for breach of the Yellowstone River Compact. Wyoming's more efficient irrigation systems are permissible under the Compact as long as the water conserved by those systems is used to irrigate the same acreage watered in 1950. (Kagan, J., recused).
Plain English Holding: Wyoming did not violate the Yellowstone River Compact by allowing Wyoming residents to implement more efficient irrigation systems on the farmland that existed when the compact was signed, even though the result is less water flowing downstream to Montana.
Judgment: Montana’s exception to the report of the Special Master is overruled., 7-1, in an opinion by Justice Thomas on May 2, 2011. Justice Scalia filed a dissenting opinion. (Kagan, J., recused).
SCOTUSblog Coverage
- This week at the Supreme Court: In Plain English (Lisa Tucker, May 7, 2011)
- Court takes on foreign policy dispute (UPDATED) (Lyle Denniston, May 2, 2011)
- Opinion analysis: A drop of new water law (Lyle Denniston, May 2, 2011)
- January's arguments: In Plain English (Lisa Tucker, January 23, 2011)
- Argument recap: The murky depths of water law (Lyle Denniston, January 10, 2011)
- Argument preview: Upstream rights, downstream woes (Lyle Denniston, January 9, 2011)
- Montana water case -- explained (Lyle Denniston, October 13, 2010)