How does the Supreme Court make its decisions? How does it interact with Congress, the president, and the executive branch as part of the separation of powers? How can we view these interactions as strategic behaviour of the Supreme Court? Other types of interstate litigation for which the court has jurisdiction include lawsuits brought by one state as a beneficiary of another state`s obligations to recover those obligations,14Footnote South Dakota v. North Carolina, 192 U.S. 286 (1904). 15FootnoteVirginia v. West Virginia, 220 U.S. 1 (1911). Prohibit Texas from interfering with the execution of a Texas foundation contract to help build a new hospital at the University of Arkansas Medical Center,16FootnoteArkansas v. Texas, 346 U.S. 368 (1953). one state versus another to enforce a treaty between the two,17Footnote Kentucky v. Indiana, 281 U.S. 163 (1930). an equity action between states to determine the residence of a deceased for estate tax purposes,18FootnoteTexas v.
Florida, 306 U.S. 398 (1939). In California v. Texas, 437 U.S. 601 (1978), the court denied a state permission to bring an initial lawsuit against another state to determine the disputed residence of a deceased for death tax purposes, with several judges holding that Texas v. Florida had been ill-decided or doubtful. But after it was found that an inter-pledger application by the estate administrator for the determination of residence by the Eleventh Amendment, Cory v. White, 457 U.S. 85 (1982), the court allowed the initial dissent lawsuit to be filed. California v.
Texas, 457 U.S. 164 (1982). and a lawsuit by two states to prevent a third state from applying a natural gas measure that purported to restrict the interstate flow of natural gas from the state in the event of a shortage.19NotePennsylvania v. West Virginia, 262 U.S. 553 (1923). The Court, in Maryland v. Louisiana, 451 U.S. 725 (1981), because of strong disagreements, relied on this case to allow action against a tax levied on natural gas, the frequency of which was the responsibility of the consuming citizens of the requesting state. And in Wyoming v. Oklahoma, 502 U.S.
437 (1992), the court allowed one state to sue another to challenge a law requiring all state utilities to burn a mixture containing at least 10 percent coal in the state, with the requesting state previously providing 100 percent of the coal to those utilities, thereby suffering a loss of coal separation tax revenue. Modern types of interstate lawsuits — starting with Missouri v. Illinois & Chicago District, 895, which maintained jurisdiction for an injunction to restrict the discharge of sewage into the Mississippi River, water rights, use of water resources, etc. — have become a growing source of interstate lawsuits. Such costumes were especially common in Western states, where water is even more of a treasure than elsewhere, but they were not limited to a single region. In Kansas v. Colorado, 896, the Court held that the principle of equitable sharing of river or water resources among conflicting state interests. In New Jersey v. New York, 897, where New Jersey attempted to force the diversion of water into the Hudson River watershed for New York in a way that reduced the flow of the Delaware River into New Jersey, violated its shade, and noxiously increased Delaware`s salinity, Judge Holmes said for the court: “A river is more than a commodity, it`s a treasure. It offers a necessity for life that must be rationed among those who have power over it. New York has the physical power to cut off all water from its jurisdiction.
But it is clear that the exercise of such power to destroy the interests of inferior states could not be tolerated. And on the other hand, New Jersey could not be allowed to force New York to completely relinquish its power so that the river could descend there relentlessly. The two states have real and substantial interests in the river, which must be reconciled as much as possible. 898 In general, Congress determines the jurisdiction of federal courts. However, in some cases – such as in the example of a dispute between two or more U.S. states – the Constitution grants the Supreme Court original jurisdiction, an authority that cannot be revoked by Congress. Chisholm v. Georgia38Footnote2 U.S.
(2 Dall.) 419 (1793). that cases between a State and the citizens of another State included those in which a State was a responding party that provoked the proposal and ratification of the Eleventh Amendment, and since then the controversy between one State and the citizens of another State has included only cases in which the State was or consented to a requesting party, 39Footnotesee the discussion under the Eleventh Amendment. As a complaining party, a State may take legal action against citizens of other States to protect its legal rights or, in some cases, as parens patriae to protect the health and well-being of its citizens. In general, the Court has tended to interpret strictly this grant of judicial power, which at the same time falls within its original jurisdiction, applying the concepts of cases and controversies perhaps even more strictly than in cases between private parties.40Note Massachusetts v. Mellon, 262 U.S. 447 (1923); Florida vs. Mellon, 273 U.S. 12 (1927); New Jersey vs.
Sargent, 269 U.S. 328 (1926). This is done by strictly adhering to the rule that all defendants of the parties are citizens of other statesFootnotePennsylvania v. Quicksilver Co., 77 U.S. (10 Wall.) 553 (1871); California v. Southern Pacific Co., 157 U.S. 229 (1895); Minnesota v. Northern Securities Co., 184 U.S. 199 (1902).
and maintaining the division of its original jurisdiction by Congress at the same time as that of the other federal courts.42FootnoteWisconsin v. Pelican Ins. Co., 127 U.S. 265 (1888). In Cohens v. Virginia, 43 feet 19 U.S. (6 wheat) 264, 398–99 (1821). There is a saying that the original jurisdiction of the Supreme Court does not include proceedings between a state and its own citizens. Long after, the Supreme Court dismissed a lawsuit for lack of jurisdiction because it was not apparent from the records that the company against which the lawsuit had been filed was licensed in another state.44FootnotePennsylvania v.
Quicksilver Mining Co., 77 U.S. (10 Wall.) 553 (1871). Subsequently, the Court held that it would not deal with an action brought by a state to which its citizens should either belong to or join parties because of the effect of a judgment on them.45Note California v. Southern Pacific Co., 157 U.S. 229 (1895); Minnesota v. Northern Securities Co., 184 U.S. 199 (1902). In his saying in Cohen v. Virginia also pointed out to Chief Justice Marshall that there may not be jurisdiction over prosecutions by states to enforce their criminal laws.46Footnote19 United States. .