United States v. LOUISIANA, 485 U.S. 88 (1988)
Uploaded by
Scribd Government DocsUnited States v. LOUISIANA, 485 U.S. 88 (1988)
Uploaded by
Scribd Government Docs485 U.S.
88
108 S.Ct. 901
99 L.Ed.2d 83
UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff
v.
State of LOUISIANA et al. (Alabama and Mississippi
Boundary Case).
No. 9, Orig.
Argued Jan. 11, 1988.
Decided March 1, 1988.
Syllabus
In its 1985 opinion in this litigation, the Court ruled that Alabama and
Mississippi, rather than the United States, own their respective portions of
the bed under Mississippi Sound, and directed the parties to submit to the
Special Master a proposed appropriate decree. 470 U.S. 93, 105 S.Ct.
1074, 84 L.Ed.2d 73. Mississippi and the United States submitted
proposed supplemental decrees which reflected their disagreement as to
Mississippi's coastline at two points (Alabama's coastline is no longer in
dispute). The first point of contention occurs between two islands along
the Sound's southern boundary. The second point involves Mississippi's
claimed interest in seabed south of Mississippi Sound in the vicinity of
Chandeleur Sound. In his Supplemental Report, the Master concluded (a)
that the decree proposed by Mississippi should not be entered, and (b)
that, while the United States' solution as to the second disputed point
would be preferable, it would amount to a modification of the Court's
1985 opinion because it would be beyond the scope of the reference to the
Master, which concerned only Mississippi Sound and its boundary. The
Master recommended that the Court enter an order directing the parties to
submit a decree defining the coastline of Alabama and Mississippi "to the
extent agreed upon"; defining Mississippi's coastline as to the first
disputed point as proposed by the United States; and defining
Mississippi's coastline as to the second point as lying along a described
line heading west from an island on Mississippi Sound's southern
boundary to the Louisiana border. Mississippi noted exceptions relating
only to the second point of contention, and not at all to the first
contention. The United States is in opposition.
Held:
1. Since the current phase of this litigation has so far dealt only with
Mississippi Sound, and has not focused on Mississippi's interest south of
that Sound, this Court will not on the present record determine the extent
of Mississippi's rights thereto without the parties' complete agreement and
the Special Master's ready acquiescence. However, any party may
advance such claims as it might have with respect to the area south of
Mississippi Sound and in the vicinity of Chandeleur Sound by filing a
timely complaint in these proceedings. P. 9293.
2. Because Mississippi's presently pending objections do not relate to
Mississippi Sound nor contest the validity of that Sound's closing lines
recommended by the Master, all parties are in agreement as to that Sound
and its boundary. P. 92.
Exceptions of Mississippi overruled, and Special Master's Supplemental
Report and his recommendations, to the extent they are consistent with
this opinion, adopted and confirmed.
BLACKMUN, J., delivered the opinion of the Court, in which all other
Members joined, except MARSHALL and KENNEDY, JJ., who took no
part in the consideration or decision of the case.
Jim R. Bruce, Sp. Asst. Atty. Gen., for Mississippi.
Jeffrey P. Minear, Asst. to the Sol. Gen., Dept. of Justice, Washington,
D.C., for the U.S.
Justice BLACKMUN delivered the opinion of the Court.
In the Court's most recent opinion in this extended litigation, see 470 U.S. 93,
105 S.Ct. 1074, 84 L.Ed.2d 73 (1985), Mississippi Sound was determined to be
a historic bay under the Convention on the Territorial Sea and the Contiguous
Zone, [1964] 15 U.S.T. (pt. 2) 1607, T.I.A.S. No. 5639. The waters of that
Sound, therefore, are inland waters, and Alabama and Mississippi own their
respective portions of the bed of Mississippi Sound. The Court, as is customary
in cases of this kind, stated:
"The parties are directed promptly to submit to the Special Master a proposed
appropriate decree for this Court's consideration; if the parties are unable to
agree upon the form of the decree, each shall submit its proposal to the Master
for his consideration and recommendation." 470 U.S., at 115, 105 S.Ct., at
1086-1087.
3
Jurisdiction was retained to entertain such further proceedings as might be
determined to be necessary or advisable to effectuate and supplement the decree
and to determine the rights of the parties. Ibid.
The Supplemental Report dated March 16, 1987, of the Special Master, the
Honorable Walter P. Armstrong, Jr., now has been filed and is before us. The
Master notes therein, p. 2, that no disagreement remains among the parties with
respect to the coastline and seaward boundary of Alabama. That much has been
decided and is clear. The Master further notes, however, id., at 3, that
Mississippi and the United States are in disagreement as to the "seaward
boundary" of Mississippi "at two points." Attached to the Report, as exhibits,
are forms of a supplemental decree proposed respectively by the United States
and by Mississippi. Id., at 31 and 38. The Special Master ends his Report with
conclusions and recommendations. Id., at 26. Mississippi has noted exceptions.
The United States is in opposition to those exceptions. Alabama at this point, of
course, stands mute. Briefs have been filed and oral argument has been
presented.
The Special Master concluded (a) that the decree proposed by Mississippi
should not be entered, ibid., and (b) that, while "the line proposed by the
United States," would be "a preferable solution," it "would amount to a
modification of the Court's opinion of February 26, 1985," because it "would
be beyond the scope of the reference" to the Master. Id., at 27. He has
recommended that the Court "enter an order directing the parties to prepare and
submit to the Special Master a decree" defining the seaward boundaries of
Alabama and Mississippi "to the extent agreed upon"; defining Mississippi's
seaward boundary between Petit Bois Island and Horn Island "as proposed in
the decree submitted by the United States"; and, despite his expressed
reservation noted above, defining the portion of Mississippi's seaward boundary
from West Ship Island westward as a described line intersecting at its
westernmost point with the already-determined Louisiana border.* Ibid.
* The specific proceeding that culminated in this Court's opinion of February
26, 1985, reported at 470 U.S. 93, 105 S.Ct. 1074, 84 L.Ed.2d 73 concerned,
we thought, only Mississippi Sound and its boundary. See id., at 94, 105 S.Ct.
at 1076; Tr. of Oral Arg. 3. The Special Master's Report and his stated
reservation as to the scope of the reference to him also appear to reflect that
understanding. But in its argument to the Master and in its present exceptions,
Mississippi seeks to extend the scope of this litigation to include its interest in
seabed south of Mississippi Sound. The State's current arguments bear little
relation to earlier proceedings unless one engrafts upon our 1985 opinion, and
upon our direction therein for a proposed decree fixing the southern boundary
of Mississippi Sound, an implication that Mississippi's rights, if any, south of
that Sound's boundary are to be definitively determined in this phase of the
litigation.
7
To the south of the western part of Mississippi Sound lies Chandeleur Sound, a
body of water east of Louisiana's mainland and west of the offshore Chandeleur
Islands that run north and south. Chandeleur Sound and Mississippi Sound
generally lie perpendicular to each other. They are separated by Cat Island,
West Ship Island, and East Ship Island. The latter two at one time formed a
single island but became divided by hurricane action some years ago.
An earlier phase of this litigation led to the entry of a supplemental decree
issued June 16, 1975, see United States v. Louisiana (Louisiana Boundary
Case), 422 U.S. 13, 95 S.Ct. 2022, 44 L.Ed.2d 652, fixing the coastline
(baseline) of Louisiana pursuant to the Court's decision of March 17, 1975, see
420 U.S. 529, 95 S.Ct. 1180, 43 L.Ed.2d 373. Embodied in that decree is a line
then stipulated to by the United States and the State of Louisiana delimiting
Louisiana's interest in Chandeleur Sound north of the Chandeleur Islands. The
Solicitor General advises us that the United States, in this litigation with
Mississippi, offered to recognize Mississippi's rights "in the vicinity of
Chandeleur Sound on the basis of an extension of the line stipulated" in the
litigation between the United States and Louisiana (a line running from the
location at that time of the northernmost of the Chandeleur Islands to a point
near the middle of West Ship Island), but that Mississippi rejected that offer.
Brief for United States 2-3. Mississippi acknowledges the rejection. Tr. of Oral
Arg. 6. Thus, that easy solution to the controversy between the United States
and Mississippi as to waters south of Mississippi Sound and in the vicinity of
Chandeleur Sound proved to be unattainable. What remains in dispute is an
area of about 150 square miles. Id., at 16.
II
9
As has been stated above, the current phase of the litigation up to this point, so
far as Mississippi is concerned, has dealt only with Mississippi Sound. It has
not focused on Mississippi's interest south of Mississippi Sound. This being so,
we sympathize with the Special Master's unease about the scope of the
reference to him. With the case in its present somewhat confused posture, we
are unwilling on the present record to determine the extent of Mississippi's
rights south of Mississippi Sound without the parties' complete agreement and
the Special Master's ready acquiescence.
10
Because Mississippi's exceptions to the Special Master's Supplemental Report
do not relate at all to Mississippi Sound, and do not contest the validity of that
Sound's closing lines recommended by the Master, we are left with a situation
where all parties are in agreement as to that Sound and its boundary. The
exceptions of Mississippi, as presented to us at this time, therefore are overruled
but without prejudice to the advancement of such claims as any party might
have with respect to the area south of Mississippi Sound and in the vicinity of
Chandeleur Sound in an appropriate separate chapter of these proceedings. The
Supplemental Report dated March 16, 1987, of the Special Master and his
recommendations, to the extentand only to the extentthey are consistent
with this opinion, are adopted and confirmed.
11
The parties once again are directed promptly to submit to the Special Master a
proposed appropriate decree for this Court's consideration defining the claims
of Alabama and Mississippi with respect to Mississippi Sound. If the parties are
unable to agree upon the form of the decree, each shall submit its proposal to
the Special Master for his consideration and recommendation. Each party shall
bear its own costs; the actual expenses of the Special Master incurred with
respect to this litigation since February 26, 1985, shall be borne half by the
United States and half by Mississippi.
12
The Court retains jurisdiction to entertain such further proceedings, enter such
orders, and issue such writs as from time to time may be determined to be
necessary or advisable to effectuate and supplement the forthcoming decree and
to determine the rights of the respective parties.
13
In order to facilitate the resolution of any question that might remain as to
Chandeleur Sound, leave is granted the State of Mississippi and the United
States, respectively, without further motion, to file a complaint with this Court
setting forth its claim to any undecided portion of Chandeleur Sound. The
complaint may be filed within 60 days of the date this opinion is filed. An
opposing party shall have 45 days to respond. It is expected that all concerned
will cooperate in expediting this remaining aspect of this phase of the litigation.
14
It is so ordered.
15
Justice MARSHALL and Justice KENNEDY took no part in the consideration
or decision of this litigation.
We necessarily assume that, by his repeated use of the term "seaward
boundary," the Master is referring to Mississippi's coastline and not to its
ultimate offshore boundary.
