Document ID: ./input/supremecourt_opinions/opinions/boundvolumes/558bv.pdf
Page Number: 419.0

258 

SOUTH  CAROLINA  v.  NORTH  CAROLINA 

Syllabus 

tion  is  not  required.  Charlotte  is  a  North  Carolina  municipality,  and 
for  purposes  of  this  litigation,  its  water  transfers  from  the  river  basin 
constitute  part  of  that  State’s  equitable  share.  While  the  complaint 
names Charlotte as an entity authorized by North Carolina to carry out 
a large water transfer from the river basin, the complaint does not seek 
relief  against  Charlotte  directly,  but,  rather,  seeks  relief  against  all 
North Carolina-authorized water transfers in excess of that State’s equi­
table  share.  Charlotte,  therefore,  occupies  a  class  of  affected  North 
Carolina water users, and the magnitude of its authorized transfer does 
not  distinguish  it  in  kind  from  other  class  members.  Nor  does  Char­
lotte represent interstate interests that fall on both sides of this dispute, 
as does the CRWSP.  Pp. 274–276. 

Exceptions to Special Master’s First Interim Report overruled in part and 

sustained in part. 

Alito, J., delivered the opinion of the Court, in which Stevens, Scalia, 
Kennedy, and Breyer, JJ., joined.  Roberts, C. J., ﬁled an opinion con­
curring in the judgment in part and dissenting in part, in which Thomas, 
Ginsburg, and Sotomayor, JJ., joined, post, p. 276. 

David  C.  Frederick  argued  the  cause  for  plaintiff.  With 
him  on  the  briefs  were  Henry  Dargan  McMaster,  Attorney 
General of South Carolina, John W. McIntosh, Chief Deputy 
Attorney  General,  Robert  D.  Cook,  Assistant  Deputy  Attor­
ney  General,  T.  Parkin  Hunter  and  Leigh  Childs  Cantey, 
Assistant  Attorneys  General,  Scott  H.  Angstreich,  Scott  K. 
Attaway, and Michael K. Gottlieb. 

Eric  D.  Miller  argued  the  cause  for  the  United  States  as 
amicus  curiae.  On  the  brief  were  then-Acting  Solicitor 
General  Kneedler,  Acting  Assistant  Attorney  General  Cru­
den, William M. Jay, and K. Jack Haugrud. 

H. Christopher Bartolomucci argued the cause for the in­
tervention  movants.  With  him  on  the  brief  for  the  City  of 
Charlotte  were  James  T.  Banks,  Adam  J.  Siegel,  Parker  D. 
Thomson,  DeWitt  F.  McCarley,  and  H.  Michael  Boyd. 
Thomas C. Goldstein, Troy D. Cahill, James W. Sheedy, and 
Susan E. Driscoll ﬁled a brief for the Catawba River Water 
Supply  Project.  Carter  G.  Phillips,  Virginia  A.  Seitz,  and 
Garry S. Rice ﬁled a brief for Duke Energy Carolinas, LLC.