Document ID: ./input/supremecourt_opinions/opinions/boundvolumes/558bv.pdf
Page Number: 417.0

256 

OCTOBER  TERM,  2009 

Syllabus 

SOUTH  CAROLINA  v.  NORTH  CAROLINA 

on exceptions to report of special master 

No. 138, Orig.  Argued October 13, 2009—Decided January 20, 2010 

South  Carolina  brought  this  original  action  seeking  an  equitable  appor­
tionment  with  North  Carolina  of  the  Catawba  River’s  waters.  The 
Court  referred  the  matter  to  a  Special  Master,  together  with  the  mo­
tions of three nonstate entities—the Catawba River Water Supply Proj­
ect  (CRWSP),  Duke  Energy  Carolinas,  LLC  (Duke  Energy),  and  the 
city  of  Charlotte,  N.  C.—seeking  leave  to  intervene  as  parties.  South 
Carolina  opposed  the  motions.  After  a  hearing,  the  Special  Master 
granted  all  three  motions  and,  on  South  Carolina’s  request,  memori­
alized  her  reasoning  in  a  First  Interim  Report.  Among  other  things, 
she  recognized  that  New  Jersey  v.  New  York,  345  U. S.  369,  373,  sets 
forth  the  “appropriate”  standard  for  a  nonstate  entity’s  intervention 
in  an  original  action;  looked  beyond  intervention  to  original  ac­
tions  in  which  the  Court  allowed  complaining  States  to  name  nonstate 
entities  as  defendants  in  order  to  give  that  standard  context;  “dis­
tilled”  from  the  cases  a  broad  rule  governing  intervention;  and  applied 
that  rule  to  each  of  the  proposed  intervenors.  South  Carolina  pre­
sented exceptions. 

Held:  The CRWSP and Duke Energy have satisﬁed the appropriate inter­

vention standard, but Charlotte has not.  Pp. 264–276. 

(a)  Under  New  Jersey  v.  New  York,  “[a]n  intervenor  whose  state  is 
already  a  party  should  have  the  burden  of  showing  some  compelling 
interest  in  his  own  right,  apart  from  his  interest  in  a  class  with  all 
other citizens  and creatures of the  state, which interest is  not properly 
represented  by  the  state.”  345  U. S.,  at  373.  That  standard  applies 
equally  well  in  this  case.  Although  high,  the  standard  is  not  insur­
mountable.  See,  e. g.,  Oklahoma  v.  Texas,  258  U. S.  574,  581.  The 
Court declines to adopt the Special Master’s proposed intervention rule, 
under  which  nonstate  entities  may  become  parties  to  original  disputes 
in  appropriate  and  compelling  circumstances,  such  as  where,  e. g.,  the 
nonstate  entity  is  the  instrumentality  authorized  to  carry  out  the 
wrongful conduct or injury for which the complaining State seeks relief. 
A  compelling  reason  for  allowing  citizens  to  participate  in  one  original 
action is not necessarily a compelling reason for allowing them to inter­
vene in all original actions.  Pp. 264–268. 

(b)  This  Court  applies  the  New  Jersey  v.  New  York  standard  to  the 

proposed intervenors.  Pp. 268–276.