Document ID: ./input/supremecourt_opinions/opinions/boundvolumes/558bv.pdf
Page Number: 425.0

264 

SOUTH  CAROLINA  v.  NORTH  CAROLINA 

Opinion of the Court 

presence of the non-state entity would advance the ‘full 
exposition’ of the issues.”  Id., at 20–21. 

Applying  this  broad  rule,  the  Special  Master  found  that 
each proposed intervenor had a sufﬁciently compelling inter­
est  to  justify  intervention.  The  Special  Master  rejected 
South Carolina’s proposal to limit intervention to the remedy 
phase  of  this  litigation  and  recommended  that  this  Court 
grant the motions to intervene. 

II 
A 

Participation  by  nonstate  parties  in  actions  arising  under 
our  original  jurisdiction  is  not  a  new  development.  Article 
III, § 2, of the Constitution expressly contemplates suits “be­
tween a State and Citizens of another State” as falling within 
our  original  jurisdiction,  see,  e. g.,  Georgia  v.  Brailsford,  2 
Dall.  402  (1792),  and  for  more  than  two  centuries  the  Court 
has exercised that jurisdiction over nonstate parties in suits 
between  two  or  more  States,  see  New  York  v.  Connecticut, 
4  Dall.  1  (1799);  Missouri  v.  Illinois,  180  U. S.  208,  224–225 
(1901).  Nonstate  entities  have  even  participated  as  parties 
in  disputes  between  States,  such  as  the  one  before  us  now, 
where  the  States  were  seeking  equitable  apportionment  of 
water resources.  See, e. g., Arizona v.  California, 460 U. S. 
605,  608,  n.  1  (1983);  Texas  v.  New  Mexico,  343  U. S.  932 
(1952); New Jersey v.  City of New York, 279 U. S. 823 (1929) 
(per  curiam).  It  is,  thus,  not  a  novel  proposition  to  accord 
party status to a citizen in an original action between States. 
This  Court  likewise  has  granted  leave,  under  appropriate 
circumstances,  for  nonstate  entities  to  intervene  as  parties 
in original actions between States for nearly 90 years.  See 
Maryland v.  Louisiana, 451 U. S. 725, 745, n. 21 (1981).  In 
Oklahoma v.  Texas, 258 U. S. 574, 581, 598 (1922), a boundary 
dispute  that  threatened  to  erupt  in  armed  hostilities,  the 
Court allowed individual and corporate citizens to intervene