Document ID: ./input/supremecourt_opinions/opinions/boundvolumes/558bv.pdf
Page Number: 436

Cite as: 558 U. S. 256 (2010) 

275 

Opinion of the Court 

zens  and  creatures  of  the  state,”  whose  interest  the  State 
presumptively  represents  in  matters  of  sovereign  policy. 
Id., at 373.  We conclude that Charlotte has not carried that 
burden.  Thus,  respect  for  “sovereign  dignity”  requires  us 
to  recognize  that  North  Carolina  properly  represents  Char­
lotte  in  this  dispute  over  a  matter  of  uniquely  sovereign 
interest.  See ibid. 

North  Carolina’s  own  statements  only  reinforce  this  con­
clusion.  North  Carolina  has  said  that  it  will  defend  Char­
lotte’s  authorized  33  mgd  transfer.  Tr.  of  Oral  Arg.  52–53. 
The  State  expressly  disagrees  with  Charlotte’s  assertion 
that  the  city’s  interest  is not  adequately  represented  by  the 
State.  Brief  for  State  of  North  Carolina  in  Opposition  to 
Plaintiff ’s Exceptions 22.  Indeed, in response to Charlotte’s 
motion to intervene, North Carolina wrote the following: 

“[T]he  State  must  represent  the  interests  of  every  per­
son  that  uses  water  from  the  North  Carolina  portion  of 
the Catawba River basin.  In fact, the State has a par­
ticular  concern  for  its  political  subdivisions,  such  as 
Charlotte,  which  actually  operate  the  infrastructure  to 
provide  water  to  the  State’s  citizens. . . .  The State has  
every reason to defend the [transfers] that it has author­
ized  for  the  beneﬁt  of  its  citizens.  The  State  cannot 
agree with any implication that because it represents all 
of the users of water in North Carolina it cannot, or will 
not[,]  represent  the  interests  of  Charlotte  in  this  litiga­
tion  initiated  by  South  Carolina.”  Brief  for  State  of 
North  Carolina  in  Response  to  City  of  Charlotte’s  Mo­
tion  for  Leave  To  Intervene  and  File  Answer  1–2,  ¶ 1. 

These  statements  are  consistent  with  North  Carolina’s  role 
as parens patriae, and we see no reason that North Carolina 
cannot  represent  Charlotte’s  interest  in  this  sovereign  dis­
pute.  See New Jersey v.  New York, 345 U. S., at 374 (noting 
that Philadelphia’s interest “is invariably served by the Com­
monwealth’s position”).