Document ID: ./input/supremecourt_opinions/opinions/boundvolumes/558bv.pdf
Page Number: 449

288 

SOUTH  CAROLINA  v.  NORTH  CAROLINA 

Opinion of Roberts, C. J. 

tions to the recommendations of the Special Master.  In par­
ticular,  intervention  makes  settling  a  case  more  difﬁcult,  as 
a  private  intervenor  has  the  right  to  object  to  a  settlement 
agreement  between  the  States,  if  not  the  power  to  block  a 
settlement  altogether.  Cf.  Fireﬁghters  v.  Cleveland,  478 
U. S. 501, 529 (1986). 

And  all  this  for  what?  The  Special  Master,  and  through 
her  the  Court,  can  have  the  beneﬁt  of  the  views  of  those 
seeking  to  intervene  by  according  them  the  status  of  amici 
curiae.  “Where he presents no new questions, a third party 
can  contribute usually  most  effectively and  always most  ex­
peditiously by a brief amicus curiae and not by intervention.” 
Bush v.  Viterna, 740 F. 2d 350, 359 (CA5 1984) (per curiam) 
(internal quotation marks omitted).  Courts often treat 
amicus participation as an alternative to intervention.  See 
7C  C.  Wright,  A.  Miller,  &  M.  Kane,  Federal  Practice  and 
Procedure  § 1913,  p.  495,  and  n.  26  (2007)  (citing  examples). 
And  this  Court  often  denies  motions  to  intervene  while 
granting leave to participate as an amicus in original actions 
generally,  see,  e. g.,  Kentucky  v.  Indiana,  445  U. S.  941 
(1980);  United  States  v.  California,  377  U. S.  926  (1964); 
cf.  New  Hampshire  v.  Maine,  426  U. S.  363,  365,  n.  2  (1976), 
and in equitable apportionment actions speciﬁcally, see, e. g., 
Arizona  v.  California,  530  U. S.  392,  419,  n.  6  (2000);  Ne­
braska v.  Wyoming, 507 U. S. 584, 589–590 (1993). 

Nebraska  v.  Wyoming  is  particularly  instructive  on  this 
point.  The Court there adopted the recommendation of the 
Special Master to deny intervention to certain entities.  See 
id.,  at  589–590;  Second  Interim  Report  of  Special  Master, 
O.  T.  1991,  No.  108,  Orig.,  pp.  108–109.  The  interests  of 
those entities in the water dispute were quite similar to the 
interests of the entities seeking to intervene here: One oper­
ated a powerplant and a reservoir on the Laramie River, and 
another  was  a  power  district  seeking  to  protect  its  FERC 
license.  See  First  Interim  Report  of  Special  Master,  O.  T. 
1988, No. 108, Orig., pp. 11–14, 9a.  While it adopted the Spe­