Court Opinion

ID: 9432116
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-02 23:34:15.013687+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T17:23:32.511282
License: Public Domain

Justice Stevens,
with whom Justice Scalia joins, dissenting in part.
With respect to Part IX of the Court’s opinion, I would sustain South Carolina’s exception to the Special Master’s determination of the angle of the lateral seaward boundary. I am persuaded that a boundary drawn in reference to the full coastlines of the respective States, rather than one drawn perpendicular to the line connecting Hilton Head and Tybee Islands, is more equitable and consistent with the equidistant principle of Texas v. Louisiana, 426 U. S. 465 (1976).* The *413difference between this boundary and that recommended by the Special Master becomes particularly clear if one assumes that the boundary line would not change angles when it crosses the outer limits of the 3-mile and 12-mile territorial seas.

South Carolina’s coast runs northeast to southwest at approximately a 47° angle, and Georgia’s at a 20° angle. Ante, at 406. Lines perpendicular to these coastal fronts, at approximately 137° and 110°, respectively, define the overlapping area in the illustrations on the next page. The Hilton Head-to-Tybee closing line lies at a 14° angle. S. C. Rebuttal Brief 8. The Special Master and the Court set the boundary east of this closing line at an angle perpendicular to it, at the azimuth 104°, completely outside of the overlap of the States’ coastal fronts:
[[Image here]]
I would extend the boundary eastward from the same starting point, but at an angle perpendicular to the average angle of the States’ coastal *413fronts. Assuming that the above-reported measures of the coastal fronts are correct, the azimuth of this boundary would be approximately 123'/'°:
[[Image here]]