Document ID: ./input/supremecourt_opinions/opinions/boundvolumes/558bv.pdf
Page Number: 447

286 

SOUTH  CAROLINA  v.  NORTH  CAROLINA 

Opinion of Roberts, C. J. 

be  allowed  to  intervene  because,  as  a  bistate  entity,  its  full 
range  of  interests  cannot  be  represented  entirely  by  either 
North or South Carolina.  See ante, at 268–271. 

CRWSP’s  motion  arguably  presents  a  different  case  from 
that  of  Duke  Energy,  one  not  deﬁnitively  resolved  by  this 
Court  in  New  Jersey  v.  New  York.  At  the  end  of  the  day, 
however, I  agree with the Special Master ’s premise— 
CRWSP’s  position  is  really  no  different  from  Charlotte’s. 
I  disagree  with  her  conclusion,  of  course,  because  I  agree 
with  the  Court  that  Charlotte  should  not  be  allowed  to 
intervene. 

A bistate entity cannot be allowed to intervene merely be­
cause  it  embodies  an  “intermingling  of  state  interests.” 
Ante,  at  271,  n.  6.  The  same  would  be  true  of  any  bistate 
entity,  or  indeed  any  corporation  or  individual  conducting 
business in both States.  An exception for such cases would 
certainly  swallow  the  New  Jersey  v.  New  York  rule.  Enti­
ties  with  interests  in  both  States  must  seek  to  vindicate 
those  interests  within  each  State.  Bistate  entities  are  not 
States entitled to invoke our original jurisdiction, and should 
not  be  effectively  accorded  an  automatic  right  to  intervene 
as parties in cases within that jurisdiction. 

With  respect  to  both  Duke  Energy  and  CRWSP,  the  ma­
jority further relies on its conclusion that the States will not 
“properly  represent”  the  interests  of  those  entities.  Ante, 
at  270;  see  ante,  at  273.  If  by  that  the  Court  means  that 
the States may adopt positions adverse to Duke Energy and 
CRWSP, that surely cannot be enough.  The guiding princi­
ple articulated in New Jersey v.  New York is “that the state, 
when a party to a suit involving a matter of sovereign inter­
est, ‘must be deemed to represent all its citizens,’ ” and may 
not be “judicially impeached on matters of policy by its own 
subjects.”  345 U. S.,  at 372–373 (quoting  Kentucky v.  Indi­
ana, 281 U. S., at 173–174).  This case involves a “matter of 
sovereign interest”—the equitable apportionment of water— 
and  the  States  therefore  “properly  represen[t]”  the  shared