Document ID: ./input/supremecourt_opinions/opinions/boundvolumes/558bv.pdf
Page Number: 429.0

268 

SOUTH  CAROLINA  v.  NORTH  CAROLINA 

Opinion of the Court 

case  in  which  it  was  a  party  should  be  determined  in  the 
highest, rather than in a subordinate judicial tribunal of the 
nation”).5 

That  the  standard  for  intervention  in  original  actions  by 
nonstate  entities  is  high,  however,  does  not  mean  that  it  is 
insurmountable.  Indeed,  as  the  Special  Master  correctly 
recognized,  our  practice  long  has  been  to  allow  such  in­
tervention  in  compelling  circumstances.  See  Oklahoma  v. 
Texas,  258  U. S.,  at  581.  Over  the  “strong  objections”  of 
three  States,  for  example,  the  Court  allowed  Indian  tribes 
to intervene in a sovereign dispute concerning the equitable 
apportionment  of  the  Colorado  River.  Arizona  v.  Califor­
nia, 460 U. S., at 613.  The Court did so notwithstanding the 
Tribes’  simultaneous  representation  by  the  United  States. 
Id.,  at  608–609,  612.  And  in  a  boundary  dispute  among 
Texas,  Louisiana,  and  the  United  States,  the  Court  allowed 
the  city of  Port  Arthur, Texas,  to  intervene  for the  purpose 
of  protecting  its  interests  in  islands  in  which  the  United 
States  claimed  title.  Texas  v.  Louisiana,  426  U. S.,  at  466; 
Texas  v.  Louisiana,  416  U. S.  965  (1974).  In  both  of  these 
examples,  the  Court  found  compelling  interests  that  war­
ranted allowing nonstate entities to intervene in original ac­
tions  in  which  the  intervenors  were  nominally  represented 
by sovereign parties. 

B 
1 

Applying the standard of New Jersey v.  New York, supra, 
here, we conclude that the CRWSP has demonstrated a suf­

5 South  Carolina  has  not  invoked  the  Eleventh  Amendment  as  a  basis 
for opposing intervention.  It has noted, however, that the proposed inter­
venors’ claims are, in effect, against South Carolina, and thus has reserved 
the right to argue that the Eleventh Amendment bars particular forms of 
relief sought by the proposed intervenors.  As in New Jersey v.  New York, 
345  U. S.  369,  372  (1953)  (per  curiam),  we  express  no  view  whether  the 
Eleventh Amendment is implicated where a nonstate entity seeks to inter­
vene as a defendant in an original action over a State’s objection.