What follows is an opinion from the Supreme Court of the United States. Your task is to identify the court in which the case originated. Focus on the court in which the case originated, not the administrative agency. For this reason, if appropiate note the origin court to be a state or federal appellate court rather than a court of first instance (trial court). If the case originated in the United States Supreme Court (arose under its original jurisdiction or no other court was involved), note the origin as "United States Supreme Court". If the case originated in a state court, note the origin as "State Court". Do not code the name of the state. The courts in the District of Columbia present a special case in part because of their complex history. Treat local trial (including today's superior court) and appellate courts (including today's DC Court of Appeals) as state courts. Consider cases that arise on a petition of habeas corpus and those removed to the federal courts from a state court as originating in the federal, rather than a state, court system. A petition for a writ of habeas corpus begins in the federal district court, not the state trial court. Identify courts based on the naming conventions of the day. Do not differentiate among districts in a state. For example, use "New York U.S. Circuit for (all) District(s) of New York" for all the districts in New York.

Opinion:
ILLINOIS v. KENTUCKY
No. 106,
Orig.
Argued March 18, 1991
Decided May 28, 1991
Souter, J., delivered the opinion for a unanimous Court.
John Brunsman, Assistant Attorney General of Illinois, argued the cause for plaintiff. With him on the brief was Neil F. Hartigan, Attorney General.
Rickie L. Pearson, Assistant Attorney General of Kentucky, argued the cause for defendant. With him on the brief were Frederic J. Cowan, Attorney General, and James M. Ringo, Assistant Attorney General.
Justice Souter
delivered the opinion of the Court.
In this case we return again to the history and geography of the Ohio River valley, as we consider the location of the boundary of the Commonwealth of Kentucky with the State of Illinois. We hold it to be the line of the low-water mark along the river’s northerly shore as it was in 1792.
I — I
In July 1986, Illinois sought leave to file a bill of complaint against Kentucky, invoking this Court’s original jurisdiction to resolve a disagreement about the location of the common boundary of the two States. See U. S. Const., Art. Ill, §2. Illinois asked the Court to declare “the boundary line ... to be the low-water mark on the northerly shore of the Ohio River as it existed in 1792,” Report of Special Master 1-2, and to enjoin Kentucky “from disturbing in any manner the State of Illinois or its citizens from the peaceful use, and enjoyment of all land, water and jurisdiction within the boundaries of Illinois as established by the Court,” id., at 2. We granted leave to file the bill of complaint, 479 U. S. 879 (1986), and appointed the Honorable Robert Van Pelt as Special Master.
In its answer to the complaint, Kentucky denied that the boundary was the 1792 line and claimed it to be the river’s northerly low-water mark “as it exists from time to time.” The answer raised the “affirmative defenses” of acquiescence and laches, and invoked certain “principles of riparian boundaries.” Report of Special Master 2.
The parties spent the next three years in discovery and, after submitting evidence to the Special Master in January 1990, were granted additional time to develop the evidentiary record on Kentucky’s claim of prescription and acquiescence. After receiving this evidence in April 1990, the Special Master submitted a report to this Court, which was ordered filed. 498 U. S. 803 (1990).
The Special Master recommended that we (1) determine the boundary between Illinois and Kentucky to be the “low-water mark on the northerly side of the Ohio River as it existed in the year 1792”; (2) find that the record fails to “support the Commonwealth of Kentucky’s affirmative defenses”; (3) find that the construction of dams on the Ohio River has caused “the present low-water mark on the Illinois side of the river [to be] farther north than it was in 1792”; and (4) order the two States’ common boundary to be determined, “as nearly as [the 1792 line] can now be ascertained, . . . either (a) by agreement of the parties, (b) by joint survey agreed upon by both parties, or (c) in the absence of such an agreement or survey, [by the Court] after hearings conducted by the Special Master and the submission by him to the Court of proposed findings and conclusions.” Report of Special Master 48-49.
Kentucky has filed exceptions to the Special Master’s report. While Kentucky challenges many of the factual findings, its primary dispute is with the conclusion that Kentucky has failed to prove its claim, styled as an affirmative defense, that under the doctrine of prescription and acquiescence the boundary is the low-water mark as it may be from time to time.
II
A
We agree in large measure with the Special Master’s report. The threshold issue presented in this case was resolved in Ohio v. Kentucky, 444 U. S. 335 (1980), in which we held that Kentucky’s boundary with Ohio was the northerly low-water mark of the Ohio River as it was in 1792. We based that holding on the history of Virginia’s 1784 cession to the United States of the lands “northwest of the river Ohio” and Kentucky’s succession to Virginia’s northwest boundary upon reaching statehood in 1792. Id., at 337-338. We relied on the prior opinion in Indiana v. Kentucky, 136 U. S. 479, 518-519 (1890), in which Justice Field, for a unanimous Court, reviewed this history and held that Kentucky’s boundary with Indiana followed the low-water mark on the northerly shore of the Ohio River “when Kentucky became a State.” Ibid. The same history and precedent that supplied the general rule for determining the boundary separating Kentucky from its neighboring States of Ohio and Indiana on the Ohio River also govern the determination of Kentucky’s historical boundary on that river with Illinois.
Kentucky has, indeed, conceded that “if this case were before the Court simply as a matter of law, Ohio v. Kentucky . . . would be controlling precedent.” Exceptions of Commonwealth of Kentucky 9 (emphasis in original). Kentucky’s exceptions assume, rather, that the case does not turn on the issue of law decided in Ohio v. Kentucky, but on the “factual issue of acquiescence which Kentucky has raised as an affirmative defense on the question of its boundary with Illinois.” Exceptions of Commonwealth of Kentucky 9-10. Kentucky contends that it has long asserted, and Illinois has acquiesced in the assertion, that the common boundary of the two States is the low-water mark of the Ohio River, not as it was in 1792, but as it may be from time to time.
Although Kentucky has styled its acquiescence claim an affirmative defense, this “defense,” if successfully proved, would not only counter Illinois’ boundary claim but also establish Kentucky’s own position. To do this on a theory of prescription and acquiescence, Kentucky would need to show by a preponderance of the evidence, first, a long and continuous possession of, and assertion of sovereignty over, the territory delimited by the transient low-water mark. Longstanding “[possession and dominion are essential elements of a claim of sovereignty by prescription and acquiescence.” Georgia v. South Carolina, 497 U. S. 376, 389 (1990). Kentucky would then have the burden to prove Illinois’ long acquiescence in those acts of possession and jurisdiction. As we stated in Oklahoma v. Texas, 272 U. S. 21, 47 (1926), there is a “general principle of public law” that, as between States, a “long acquiescence in the possession of territory under a claim of right and in the exercise of dominion and sovereignty over it, is conclusive of the rightful authority.” See also Georgia v. South Carolina, supra, at 389 (“[L]ong acquiescence in the practical location of an interstate boundary, and possession in accordance therewith, often has been used as an aid in resolving boundary disputes” between States).
The record developed before the Special Master in this case fails to support Kentucky’s claim of sovereignty by prescription and acquiescence. After a thorough review of the voluminous evidence presented by both States, the Special Master concluded that Kentucky had proved neither long and continuous action in support-of its claim to a boundary at the northerly low-water mark as it might be from time to time, nor Illinois’ acquiescence in that claim. While Kentucky’s many exceptions to the extensive factual findings on these issues do not merit discussion seriatim, an examination of a few will indicate the evidentiary support generally for the Special Master’s conclusions.
The Special Master first assessed the evidence bearing on Kentucky’s exercise of dominion. According to Kentucky’s view of the boundary, for example, any permanent structure extending out over the water from the river’s northern bank would be within Kentucky’s territory and subject to its taxing power, one of the primary indicia of sovereignty. The record in this case, however, shows that Kentucky has imposed a property tax on only 3 of the 15 structures that extend out, into, or over the water from the Illinois shoreline. Of the three affected taxpayers, one who received a Kentucky tax bill for property extending south into the river was also taxed on the same structure by Illinois, and another paid the Kentucky bill only under protest, “claiming that the property [taxed was] within the State of Illinois.” Report of Special Master 37. The remaining 12 structures extending south into the river from Illinois have never been taxed by Kentucky.
Kentucky advanced what it took to be a stronger claim to having exercised exclusive taxing jurisdiction right up to the transient low-water mark by offering evidence of its ad valo-rem taxation of barges and other watercraft traveling on the river. But this evidence simply fails to speak directly to the boundary issue in this case. Vessels traveling the river usually follow a sailing line charted by the United States Army Corps of Engineers which, for most of the stretch in question, is either close to the center of the river or near the Kentucky shore. Illinois does not dispute that the sailing line, like most of the river, is within the boundary and jurisdiction of Kentucky. Id., at 38. The territory in question, rather, is thought to be a comparatively narrow sliver of the Ohio along its northerly shore, where barges and watercraft would rarely venture. As to the sliver, Kentucky’s acts of taxation have been, at best, equivocal, and the Special Master was accordingly correct when he observed that the fact of Kentucky’s taxation of barges “traveling on the Ohio River within the acknowledged jurisdiction of Kentucky, does not support Kentucky’s claim of exclusive jurisdiction of the entire breadth of the river.” Ibid.
This evidence of Kentucky's failure to engage in consistent and unequivocal acts of occupation and dominion does not stand alone, however, for we are concerned not only with what its officers have done, but with what they have said, as well. And what they have said has, in several instances, supported Illinois’ claim. The Legislative Research Commission of the Kentucky General Assembly and the Attorney General of Kentucky have each taken the position in the recent past that Kentucky’s northern border is the 1792 low-water mark. An Information Bulletin issued by the Legislative Research Commission in December 1972 states that “‘Kentucky’s North and Western boundary, to-wit, the low-water mark on the North shore of the Ohio River as of 1792 has been recognized as the boundary based upon the fact that Kentucky was created from what was then Virginia.’” Id., at 15. An earlier opinion by the Commonwealth’s Attorney General issued in 1963 asserted that the “‘law, of course is that the boundary line between the states of Indiana and Kentucky is the low-water [mark] on the north shore of the Ohio as it existed when Kentucky became a state in 1792.’” Id., at 12. These statements came to our attention in Kentucky’s last boundary case in this Court, where we found it “of no little interest” in deciding Ohio v. Kentucky, 444 U. S., at 340-341, that these “Kentucky sources themselves, in recent years, have made reference to the 1792 low-water mark as the boundary.” It is hardly of less interest this time.
Just as this representative evidence fails to indicate any longstanding exercise of occupation and dominion of the disputed area by Kentucky, the record is equally unsupportive of the claim of Illinois’ acquiescence. It is true that the Illinois Constitution of 1818 described the State’s boundary with Kentucky on the Ohio River simply as following “along its north-western shore,” Ill. Const., Preamble (1818), and the same description was employed in the State Constitutions of 1848 and 1870, see Ill. Const., Art. I (1848), Ill. Const., Art. I (1870). But these are verbatim recitations of the congressional language describing Illinois’ boundary in the State’s Enabling Act of April 18, 1818, ch. 67, 3 Stat. 428, and the Special Master correctly reasoned that “[w]hat Congress intended to be the southern boundary of Illinois, was the same southern boundary granted the states of Ohio and Indiana when they were formed. . . . Illinois, like Ohio and Indiana, was created from the territory ceded by Virginia to the United States. ...” Report of Special Master 28. Although the current version of the Illinois Constitution, adopted in 1970, omits any description of the State’s boundaries, the 1870 Constitution’s language remained the reference point in the most recent Illinois case dealing with the State’s river' boundary that has come to our attention. See People ex rel. Scott v. Dravo Corp., 10 Ill. App. 3d 944, 944-945, 295 N. E. 2d 284, 285 (1973), cert. denied, 416 U. S. 951 (1974).
The courts of Illinois, indeed, for some time took an even less hospitable view of Kentucky’s interests than the Illinois Constitution did. In Joyce-Watkins Co. v. Industrial Comm’n, 325 Ill. 378, 381, 156 N. E. 346, 348 (1927), the State Supreme Court adopted a theory that would have ratchetted the boundary line forever southward toward the deepest point of the river, by holding the boundary to be the low-water mark on the northerly shore of the river at the “point to which the water receded at its lowest stage.” This description of the boundary was followed by Illinois courts until at least 1973, see People ex rel. Scott v. Dravo Corp., supra, and while it plainly conflicts with our decisions in Indiana v. Kentucky, 136 U. S. 479 (1890), and Ohio v. Kentucky, supra, its use over nearly 50 years shows that Illinois did not acquiesce in any claim by Kentucky to a low-water mark that might edge northward over time.
Such was the force of the evidence adduced, and such was its failure to support Kentucky’s claim of prescription and acquiescence.
B
Kentucky’s other affirmative defenses are likewise unavailing. The Special Master correctly observed that the laches defense is generally inapplicable against a State. See Block v. North Dakota ex rel. Bd. of Univ. and School Lands, 461 U. S. 273, 294 (1983) (O’Connor, J., dissenting) (collecting authorities); Guaranty Trust Co. v. United States, 304 U. S. 126, 132-133 (1938); cf. Weber v. Board of Harbor Comm’rs, 18 Wall. 57, 70 (1873) (statutes of limitations generally not applicable to State). Although the law governing interstate boundary disputes takes account of the broad policy disfavoring the untimely assertion of rights that underlies the defense of laches and statutes of limitations, it does so through the doctrine of prescription and acquiescence, see generally Georgia v. South Carolina, supra, which Kentucky has failed to satisfy.
Kentucky’s affirmative defenses based on the “principles of riparian boundaries, including accretion, erosion and avulsion,” require no extended consideration, for Kentucky concedes that these would affect the ultimate boundary determination only if it prevailed on the issues of prescription and acquiescence. Exceptions of Commonwealth of Kentucky 48-49 (“It is Kentucky’s position that if it prevails on its affirmative defense of acquiescence, then the well-recognized principles of accretion, erosion and avulsion would obviously apply to a current shoreline boundary as it may change from time to time”). We have previously held as much, concluding that “the well-recognized and accepted rules of accretion and avulsion attendant upon a wandering river” have no application to Kentucky’s Ohio River boundary because of the “historical factors” stemming from the cession by Virginia of the land northwest of the river to the United States. Ohio v. Kentucky, supra, at 337.
Kentucky’s final exception to the Special Master’s report goes to the finding in Part III.C. that construction of dams on the river has permanently raised its level above that of 1792, consequently placing the present low-water mark on the Illinois side farther north than it was in 1792. Kentucky calls any question about the relative locations of the 1792 line and today’s low-water mark premature, and we agree. Indeed, the Special Master himself suggested that this issue might, if necessary, “be determined at a later date,” Report of Special Master 47, after he had made further recommendations to resolve any disputes the parties may have about the exact location of the 1792 line.
Ill
The exception of the Commonwealth of Kentucky to Part III.C. and Recommendation (3) of the report of the Special Master, as to the effect of modern dams on the level of the Ohio River, is sustained. Kentucky’s other exceptions are overruled. The report, save for Part III.C. and Recommendation (3), is adopted, and the case is remanded to the Special Master for such further proceedings as may be necessary to prepare and submit an appropriate decree for adoption by the Court, locating the 1792 line.
It is so ordered.
In June 1988, we appointed a new Special Master, Matthew J. Jasen, Esq., to replace Judge Van Pelt, who had died in April 1988. 487 U. S. 1215.

Question: What is the court in which the case originated?

Choices:
U.S. Court of Customs and Patent Appeals
U.S. Court of International Trade
U.S. Court of Claims, Court of Federal Claims
U.S. Court of Military Appeals, renamed as Court of Appeals for the Armed Forces
U.S. Court of Military Review
U.S. Court of Veterans Appeals
U.S. Customs Court
U.S. Court of Appeals, Federal Circuit
U.S. Tax Court
Temporary Emergency U.S. Court of Appeals
U.S. Court for China
U.S. Consular Courts
U.S. Commerce Court
Territorial Supreme Court
Territorial Appellate Court
Territorial Trial Court
Emergency Court of Appeals
Supreme Court of the District of Columbia
Bankruptcy Court
U.S. Court of Appeals, First Circuit
U.S. Court of Appeals, Second Circuit
U.S. Court of Appeals, Third Circuit
U.S. Court of Appeals, Fourth Circuit
U.S. Court of Appeals, Fifth Circuit
U.S. Court of Appeals, Sixth Circuit
U.S. Court of Appeals, Seventh Circuit
U.S. Court of Appeals, Eighth Circuit
U.S. Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit
U.S. Court of Appeals, Tenth Circuit
U.S. Court of Appeals, Eleventh Circuit
U.S. Court of Appeals, District of Columbia Circuit (includes the Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia but not the District of Columbia Court of Appeals, which has local jurisdiction)
Alabama Middle U.S. District Court
Alabama Northern U.S. District Court
Alabama Southern U.S. District Court
Alaska U.S. District Court
Arizona U.S. District Court
Arkansas Eastern U.S. District Court
Arkansas Western U.S. District Court
California Central U.S. District Court
California Eastern U.S. District Court
California Northern U.S. District Court
California Southern U.S. District Court
Colorado U.S. District Court
Connecticut U.S. District Court
Delaware U.S. District Court
District Of Columbia U.S. District Court
Florida Middle U.S. District Court
Florida Northern U.S. District Court
Florida Southern U.S. District Court
Georgia Middle U.S. District Court
Georgia Northern U.S. District Court
Georgia Southern U.S. District Court
Guam U.S. District Court
Hawaii U.S. District Court
Idaho U.S. District Court
Illinois Central U.S. District Court
Illinois Northern U.S. District Court
Illinois Southern U.S. District Court
Indiana Northern U.S. District Court
Indiana Southern U.S. District Court
Iowa Northern U.S. District Court
Iowa Southern U.S. District Court
Kansas U.S. District Court
Kentucky Eastern U.S. District Court
Kentucky Western U.S. District Court
Louisiana Eastern U.S. District Court
Louisiana Middle U.S. District Court
Louisiana Western U.S. District Court
Maine U.S. District Court
Maryland U.S. District Court
Massachusetts U.S. District Court
Michigan Eastern U.S. District Court
Michigan Western U.S. District Court
Minnesota U.S. District Court
Mississippi Northern U.S. District Court
Mississippi Southern U.S. District Court
Missouri Eastern U.S. District Court
Missouri Western U.S. District Court
Montana U.S. District Court
Nebraska U.S. District Court
Nevada U.S. District Court
New Hampshire U.S. District Court
New Jersey U.S. District Court
New Mexico U.S. District Court
New York Eastern U.S. District Court
New York Northern U.S. District Court
New York Southern U.S. District Court
New York Western U.S. District Court
North Carolina Eastern U.S. District Court
North Carolina Middle U.S. District Court
North Carolina Western U.S. District Court
North Dakota U.S. District Court
Northern Mariana Islands U.S. District Court
Ohio Northern U.S. District Court
Ohio Southern U.S. District Court
Oklahoma Eastern U.S. District Court
Oklahoma Northern U.S. District Court
Oklahoma Western U.S. District Court
Oregon U.S. District Court
Pennsylvania Eastern U.S. District Court
Pennsylvania Middle U.S. District Court
Pennsylvania Western U.S. District Court
Puerto Rico U.S. District Court
Rhode Island U.S. District Court
South Carolina U.S. District Court
South Dakota U.S. District Court
Tennessee Eastern U.S. District Court
Tennessee Middle U.S. District Court
Tennessee Western U.S. District Court
Texas Eastern U.S. District Court
Texas Northern U.S. District Court
Texas Southern U.S. District Court
Texas Western U.S. District Court
Utah U.S. District Court
Vermont U.S. District Court
Virgin Islands U.S. District Court
Virginia Eastern U.S. District Court
Virginia Western U.S. District Court
Washington Eastern U.S. District Court
Washington Western U.S. District Court
West Virginia Northern U.S. District Court
West Virginia Southern U.S. District Court
Wisconsin Eastern U.S. District Court
Wisconsin Western U.S. District Court
Wyoming U.S. District Court
Louisiana U.S. District Court
Washington U.S. District Court
West Virginia U.S. District Court
Illinois Eastern U.S. District Court
South Carolina Eastern U.S. District Court
South Carolina Western U.S. District Court
Alabama U.S. District Court
U.S. District Court for the Canal Zone
Georgia U.S. District Court
Illinois U.S. District Court
Indiana U.S. District Court
Iowa U.S. District Court
Michigan U.S. District Court
Mississippi U.S. District Court
Missouri U.S. District Court
New Jersey Eastern U.S. District Court (East Jersey U.S. District Court)
New Jersey Western U.S. District Court (West Jersey U.S. District Court)
New York U.S. District Court
North Carolina U.S. District Court
Ohio U.S. District Court
Pennsylvania U.S. District Court
Tennessee U.S. District Court
Texas U.S. District Court
Virginia U.S. District Court
Norfolk U.S. District Court
Wisconsin U.S. District Court
Kentucky U.S. Distrcrict Court
New Jersey U.S. District Court
California U.S. District Court
Florida U.S. District Court
Arkansas U.S. District Court
District of Orleans U.S. District Court
State Supreme Court
State Appellate Court
State Trial Court
Eastern Circuit (of the United States)
Middle Circuit (of the United States)
Southern Circuit (of the United States)
Alabama U.S. Circuit Court for (all) District(s) of Alabama
Arkansas U.S. Circuit Court for (all) District(s) of Arkansas
California U.S. Circuit for (all) District(s) of California
Connecticut U.S. Circuit for the District of Connecticut
Delaware U.S. Circuit for the District of Delaware
Florida U.S. Circuit for (all) District(s) of Florida
Georgia U.S. Circuit for (all) District(s) of Georgia
Illinois U.S. Circuit for (all) District(s) of Illinois
Indiana U.S. Circuit for (all) District(s) of Indiana
Iowa U.S. Circuit for (all) District(s) of Iowa
Kansas U.S. Circuit for the District of Kansas
Kentucky U.S. Circuit for (all) District(s) of Kentucky
Louisiana U.S. Circuit for (all) District(s) of Louisiana
Maine U.S. Circuit for the District of Maine
Maryland U.S. Circuit for the District of Maryland
Massachusetts U.S. Circuit for the District of Massachusetts
Michigan U.S. Circuit for (all) District(s) of Michigan
Minnesota U.S. Circuit for the District of Minnesota
Mississippi U.S. Circuit for (all) District(s) of Mississippi
Missouri U.S. Circuit for (all) District(s) of Missouri
Nevada U.S. Circuit for the District of Nevada
New Hampshire U.S. Circuit for the District of New Hampshire
New Jersey U.S. Circuit for (all) District(s) of New Jersey
New York U.S. Circuit for (all) District(s) of New York
North Carolina U.S. Circuit for (all) District(s) of North Carolina
Ohio U.S. Circuit for (all) District(s) of Ohio
Oregon U.S. Circuit for the District of Oregon
Pennsylvania U.S. Circuit for (all) District(s) of Pennsylvania
Rhode Island U.S. Circuit for the District of Rhode Island
South Carolina U.S. Circuit for the District of South Carolina
Tennessee U.S. Circuit for (all) District(s) of Tennessee
Texas U.S. Circuit for (all) District(s) of Texas
Vermont U.S. Circuit for the District of Vermont
Virginia U.S. Circuit for (all) District(s) of Virginia
West Virginia U.S. Circuit for (all) District(s) of West Virginia
Wisconsin U.S. Circuit for (all) District(s) of Wisconsin
Wyoming U.S. Circuit for the District of Wyoming
Circuit Court of the District of Columbia
Nebraska U.S. Circuit for the District of Nebraska
Colorado U.S. Circuit for the District of Colorado
Washington U.S. Circuit for (all) District(s) of Washington
Idaho U.S. Circuit Court for (all) District(s) of Idaho
Montana U.S. Circuit Court for (all) District(s) of Montana
Utah U.S. Circuit

Answer: 211