State of New Jersey v. State of New York

Decision Date06 April 1953
Docket NumberNo. 5,O,5
Citation97 L.Ed. 1081,73 S.Ct. 689,345 U.S. 369
PartiesSTATE OF NEW JERSEY v. STATE OF NEW YORK. riginal
CourtU.S. Supreme Court

Mr. Abraham L. Freedman, Philadelphia, Pa., for City of philadelphia.

Mr. John P. McGrath, New York City, for City of New York.

Mr. Edward L. Ryan, Albany, N.Y., for State of New York.

Mr. Bernard G. Segal, Philadelphia, Pa., for Commonwealth of Pennsylvania.

Mr. Kenneth H. Murray, New York City, for State of New Jersey.

PER CURIAM.

The City of Philadelphia has moved this Court for leave to intervene in this original action concerning distribution of Delaware River water. Argument was heard on the motion on March 9, 1953, with all interested parties appearing.

The suit, addressed to this Court's original jurisdiction, was brought by the State of New Jersey, in 1929, against the State of New York and the City of New York, praying for injunctive relief against a proposed diversion of Delaware River water from tributaries within the State of New York. New Jersey joined the City of New York as a defendant, because the City, acting under State authority, was planning the actual diversion of the water for its use. The Commonwealth of Pennsylvania immediately petitioned for leave to intervene pro interesse suo. Leave to intervene was granted, upon condition that the Commonwealth file a statement of her interest in the cause and of the relief, if any, which she sought. 280 U.S. 528, 50 S.Ct. 151, 74 L.Ed. 595. Pennsylvania filed her Statement of Interest and Relief on January 10, 1930, and thereafter became an active party in the proceedings before the Special Master. In 1931, this Court confirmed the Special Master's Report, 283 U.S. 336, 51 S.Ct. 478, 75 L.Ed. 1104, and entered its decree in conformity therewith, 283 U.S. 805, 51 S.Ct. 562, 75 L.Ed. 1425.

The 1931 decree enjoined the State of New York and the City of New York from diverting from the Delaware River or its tributaries more than 440 million gallons daily, subject to a prescribed formula for the release of storage water during periods of low flow. The decree further provided:

'6. Any of the parties hereto, complaint, defendants, or intervenor, may apply at the foot of this decree for other or further action or relief, and this court retains jurisdiction of the suit for the purpose of any order or direction or modification of this decree, or any supplemental decree that it may deem at any time to be proper in relation to the subject matter in controversy.' Id., 283 U.S. at page 807, 51 S.Ct. at page 562.

On April 1, 1952, the City of New York, with the approval and support of the State of New York, moved under paragraph 6 of the 1931 decree for leave to file its petition to modify the decree by providing for diversion of additional quantities of water and for changes in the prescribed formula for releasing water during low flow. The motion was granted. 343 U.S. 974, 72 S.Ct. 1068, 96 L.Ed. 1367. New Jersey and Pennsylvania filed answers opposing the proposed modifications, and the whole matter was referred to a Special Master. Ibid.

On December 13, 1952, the City of Philadelphia filed this motion for leave to intervene. The petition asserts Philadelphia's unquestioned interest in the use of Delaware River water and points to the recent grant of her Home Rule Charter as justification for intervention at this point. All of the present parties to the litigation have formally opposed the motion to intervene on grounds (1) that the intervention would permit a suit against a state by a citizen of another state in contravention of the Eleventh Amendment; (2) that the Commonwealth of Pennsylvania has the exclusive right to represent the interest of Philadelphia as parens patriae; and (3) that intervention should be denied, in any event, as a matter of sound discretion. Philadelphia contends that the matter is entirely within the sound discretion of this Court, which should be exercised as prayed to assure that every worth while interest is represented in the ultimate decree.

The view we take of the matter makes it unnecessary to decide whether Philadelphia's intervention in the pending litigation would amount to a '* * * suit in law or equity, commenced or prosecuted against one of the United States by Citizens of another State * * *' in violation of the Eleventh Amendment. For the same reasons, we are not concerned with so much of the 'parens patriae' argument as may be only a restatement of the proposition that original jurisdiction against a state can only be invoked by another state acting in its sovereign capacity on behalf of its citizens. Cf. State of New Hampshire v. State of Louisiana, 1883, 108 U.S. 76, 2 S.Ct. 176, 27 L.Ed. 656; State of North Dakota v. State of Minnesota, 1923, 263 U.S. 365, 44 S.Ct. 138, 68 L.Ed. 342. The 'parens patriae' doctrine, however, has aspects which go beyond mere restatement of the Eleventh Amendment; it is a recognition of the principle that the state, when a party to a suit involving a matter of soverign interest, 'must be deemed to represent all its citizens.' Com. of Kentucky v. State of In- diana, 1930, 281 U.S. 163, 173—174, 50 S.Ct. 275, 277, 74 L.Ed. 784. The principle is a necessary recognition of sovereign dignity, as well as a working rule for good judicial administration. Otherwise, a state might be judicially impeached on matters of policy by its own subjects, and there would be no practical limitation on the number of citizens, as such, who would be entitled to be made parties.

The case before us demonstrates the wisdom of the rule. The City of Philadelphia represents only a part of the citizens of Pennsylvania who reside in the watershed area of the Delaware River and its tributaries and depend upon those waters.* If we undertook to evaluate all the separate interests within Pennsylvania, we could, in effect, be drawn into an intramural dispute over the distribution of water within the Commonwealth. Furthermore, we are told by New Jersey that there are cities along the Delaware River in that State which like Philadelphia, are responsible for their own water systems, and which will insist upon a right to intervene if Philadelphia is admitted. Nor is there any assurance that the list of intervenors could be closed with political subdivisions of the states. Large industrial plants which, like cities, are corporate creatures of the state may represent interests just as substantial.

Our original jurisdiction should not be thus expanded...

To continue reading

Request your trial
40 cases
  • Friends of the Earth v. Laidlaw Environmental Services
    • United States
    • U.S. District Court — District of South Carolina
    • July 10, 1995
    ...so that a state action can bar a subsequent, identical action brought by a citizen of the state. See New Jersey v. New York, 345 U.S. 369, 372-73, 73 S.Ct. 689, 690-91, 97 L.Ed. 1081 (1953). However, the Plaintiffs argue that in granting citizens the rights to enforce the CWA, Congress reco......
  • United States v. State
    • United States
    • U.S. District Court — Western District of Texas
    • October 6, 2021
    ...share of an interstate river's water." South Carolina , 558 U.S. at 274, 130 S.Ct. 854 ; see also New Jersey v. New York , 345 U.S. 369, 374–75, 73 S.Ct. 689, 97 L.Ed. 1081 (1953). As another example, it is also a sovereign interest for a state to protect its economy from deceptive mortgage......
  • United States v. State of Washington, Civ. No. 9213—Phase I.
    • United States
    • U.S. District Court — Western District of Washington
    • June 30, 1978
    ...City of Tacoma v. Taxpayers of Tacoma, 357 U.S. 320, 340-341, 78 S.Ct. 1209, 2 L.Ed.2d 1345 (1958); New Jersey v. New York, 345 U.S. 369, 73 S.Ct. 689, 97 L.Ed. 1081 (1953). 8. The orders of this court directed toward the State of Washington are binding on its citizens. City of Tacoma v. Ta......
  • U.S. v. Hooker Chemicals & Plastics Corp.
    • United States
    • U.S. Court of Appeals — Second Circuit
    • November 15, 1984
    ...for the District of Columbia affirmed. 14 Conceding, perhaps too readily, that the statement in New Jersey v. New York, 345 U.S. 369, 373, 73 S.Ct. 689, 691, 97 L.Ed. 1081 (1953) (per curiam), that an intervenor whose state is already a party must demonstrate "some compelling interest in hi......
  • Request a trial to view additional results
3 books & journal articles
  • Rethinking the Supreme Court’s Interstate Waters Jurisprudence
    • United States
    • Georgetown Environmental Law Review No. 33-2, January 2021
    • January 1, 2021
    ...v. North Carolina, 558 U.S. 256, 266 (2010) (quoting New Jersey v. New York, 283 U.S. 336, 342 (1931); see also New Jersey v. New York, 345 U.S. 369, 371–74 (1953); Kansas v. Colorado, 185 U.S. 125, 142 (1901). 88. See, e.g., New Jersey 345 U.S. at 372–73; North Dakota v. Minnesota, 263 U.S......
  • Who Gets the Drought: the Standard of Causation Necessary in Cases of Equitable Apportionment
    • United States
    • Mercer University School of Law Mercer Law Reviews No. 73-1, September 2021
    • Invalid date
    ...Colorado I, 459 U.S. at 183-84. 28. South Carolina v. North Carolina, 558 U.S. 256, 266 (2010); New Jersey v. New York (New Jersey II), 345 U.S. 369, 373 (1953).29. South Carolina, 558 U.S. at 266; New Jersey II, 345 U.S. at 373.30. Kansas I, 206 U.S. at 95.31. Id. at 97.32. 28 U.S.C. § 125......
  • Trashing the presumption: intervention on the side of the government.
    • United States
    • Environmental Law Vol. 39 No. 2, March 2009
    • March 22, 2009
    ...Act of 1969, 42 U.S.C. [section][section] 4321-4370f(2006). (91) Higginson, 631 F.2d at 739. (92) Id. (93) Id. (94) Id. (95) Id. (96) 345 U.S. 369 (97) Id. at 373. (98) Higginson, 631 F.2d at 740. (99) Id. (100) Id. (101) Id. (102) Id. at 741 (MacKinnon, J., dissenting). (103) Id. (104) 749......

VLEX uses login cookies to provide you with a better browsing experience. If you click on 'Accept' or continue browsing this site we consider that you accept our cookie policy. ACCEPT