Florida v. Georgia

From Ballotpedia
Jump to: navigation, search

Supreme Court of the United States
Florida v. Georgia
Term: 2020, 2017
Important Dates
First argument: January 8, 2018
First decision: June 27, 2018
Second argument: February 22, 2021
Second decision: April 1, 2021
Outcome
Reversed and remanded (2018); Dismissed (2021)
Vote
First vote: 5-4
Second vote: 9-0
Majority
Amy Coney Barrett • Chief Justice John G. Roberts • Clarence Thomas • Stephen Breyer • Samuel Alito • Sonia Sotomayor • Elena Kagan • Neil Gorsuch • Brett Kavanaugh

Florida v. Georgia is a case first argued on January 8, 2018, during the October 2017 term of the U.S. Supreme Court. On June 27, 2018, the court remanded the case in a 5-4 decision written by Justice Stephen Breyer. The case was argued before the court for a second time during its October 2020 term on February 22, 2021. On April 1, 2021, the court unanimously dismissed Florida's claim against Georgia, holding that Florida did not meet its burden of proof in establishing Georgia's water use caused serious harm to Florida's oyster fisheries or river wildlife and plant life. Justice Amy Coney Barrett delivered the opinion of the court.[1] Click here for more information about the ruling.

On October 5, 2020, the court issued an order indicating plans to hear the case "for oral argument in due course" during the October 2020 term. On December 31, 2020, the court scheduled the case's second argument for February 22, 2021.[2]

HIGHLIGHTS
  • The case: In 2013, Florida asked the U.S. Supreme Court for permission to file a complaint, claiming that Georgia was using more than its equitable share of the Apalachicola-Chattahoochee-Flint (ACF) River Basin waters. Florida claimed that its Apalachicola region needed more water to sustain its ecosystems and fishing industries and asked the court to cap Georgia's consumption.[3]
  • The issues: The case concerned the apportionment of waters of the Apalachicola-Chattahoochee-Flint River Basin. It came to the court under the court's original jurisdiction over disputes between states.
  • The questions presented: Is Florida entitled to equitable use of the ACF River Basin waters and should its request for an injunction to force Georgia to allow an adequate flow of fresh water be sustained?
  • The outcome: In its first decision on June 27, 2018, the court ruled 5-4 to remand the case to the special master for further findings.[4] In its second decision on April 1, 2021, the court agreed with the special master's findings and recommendations and dismissed Florida's suit against Georgia.



    • Timeline

    The following timeline details key events in this case:

    • April 1, 2021: The U.S. Supreme Court dismissed Florida's case against Georgia.
    • February 22, 2021: The U.S. Supreme Court heard the second oral argument.
    • October 5, 2020: The U.S. Supreme Court issued an order setting oral argument in due course on the exceptions to the second report.
    • April 13, 2020: Florida filed exceptions (aka, objections) to the special master's second report.
    • December 11, 2019: The court received a second report from the special master.
    • August 9, 2018: The court discharged Lancaster and appointed Paul J. Kelly, Jr. as special master.
    • June 27, 2018: The court remanded the case to the special master in a 5-4 decision.
    • January 8, 2018: The court heard oral arguments.
    • May 31, 2017: Florida filed exceptions to the special master's first report.
    • February 16, 2017: The court received the special master's first report.
    • November 19, 2014: The court appointed Ralph Lancaster as a special master in the case.
    • November 3, 2014: The court granted Florida's motion to file a complaint.
    • October 1, 2013: Florida filed a motion with the U.S. Supreme Court asking permission to file a complaint against the State of Georgia.

    Background

    Complaint (2014)

    In 2014, the United States Supreme Court granted Florida permission to file a complaint and appointed a special master to investigate the case. Florida claimed:

    “ Georgia’s water storage and consumption upstream of the Apalachicola River in the Chattahoochee and Flint River Basins has reduced Apalachicola River flows entering Florida. This reduction has damaged numerous species and habitats in the Apalachicola Region’s ecosystem, and the overall economic, environmental, and social health and viability of the region...As a result of actions authorized by Georgia, Florida has already suffered harm of a serious magnitude to the Apalachicola Region’s ecosystem and equities that arise from that ecosystem. Reduced freshwater inflows to the Apalachicola Bay over the past several years precipitated a collapse of the Apalachicola Bay oyster fishery, resulting in significant economic hardship to oystermen and others dependent upon oyster harvests.[3][5] ”


    Georgia alleged that Florida's injuries as a result of insufficient water were not attributable to Georgia's water use. Georgia alleged that Florida's injuries were the results of Florida's own actions, of the decisions and operations by the Army Corps of Engineers, or of changes in weather patterns.[6]

    In addition to disagreeing over whether Georgia's levels of consumption were inequitable, the parties also argued over whether a reduction in Georgia's water consumption would actually increase the flow of water into Florida. Specifically, the parties disputed the influence of the Army Corps of Engineers. When the case was heard in the U.S. Supreme Court, the Corps, which was not a party in the case, controlled a number of storage reservoirs that hold water from the Basin. Florida argued in part that "water from sixty-two percent of Georgia’s Basin watershed flows...[is] not controlled in any meaningful way by the Corps’ storage reservoirs" and that if Georgia reduced its consumption, that unconsumed water would flow into Florida. Georgia contended that under the Corps' operating rules, any additional water that flowed into Florida from the sources Florida identified would be offset by the Corps. In other words, the Corps would reduce the flow of water into Florida from a Corps-controlled source to offset the additional water flowing into Florida from non-Corps sources. Therefore, Georgia concluded, less consumption from Georgia would only increase the amount of water flowing to Florida if the Corps operating rules were also changed.[6]

    Special master's report (2017)

    Special Master Ralph Lancaster submitted a report on February 16, 2017, after concluding a nearly three-year investigation. The special master recommended that the Supreme Court deny Florida's claims:

    “ In sum, the Report recommends that the Court deny Florida’s request for relief because the Corps is not a party to this original jurisdiction proceeding. Because the Corps is not a party, no decree entered by this Court can mandate any change in the Corps’ operations in the Basin. Without the ability to bind the Corps, I am not persuaded that the Court can assure Florida the relief it seeks. I conclude that Florida has not proven by clear and convincing evidence that its injury can be redressed by an order equitably apportioning the waters of the Basin.[6][5] ”

    Florida filed exceptions (essentially objections) to the report. The court scheduled oral argument to consider those exceptions. Georgia filed a brief urging the Supreme Court to accept the special master's recommendation.[7] Click here for more information on the outcome of the 2018 oral arguments.

    Special master's report (2019)

    Special Master Paul J. Kelly, Jr. submitted a report on December 11, 2019. Kelly recommended denying Florida's request "because it has not proved the elements necessary to obtain relief." He wrote:[8]

    “ I do not recommend that the Supreme Court grant Florida’s request for a decree equitably apportioning the waters of the ACF Basin because the evidence has not shown harm to Florida caused by Georgia; the evidence has shown that Georgia’s water use is reasonable; and the evidence has not shown that the benefits of apportionment would substantially outweigh the potential harms. [5] ”


    Florida filed exceptions (aka, objections) to the second report on April 13, 2020.

    Question presented

    The State of Florida, the petitioner, presented the following questions to the court:[9]

    Question presented:
    “ FLORIDA’S EXCEPTIONS

    Plaintiff State of Florida respectfully submits the following exceptions to the Report of the Special Master issued on February 14, 2017:

    1. Florida takes exception to, and this Court should decline to adopt, the Special Master's report and recommendation to deny Florida's request for relief.

    2. Florida also takes exception to, and this Court should decline to adopt, the components of the Special Master's report and recommendation, including:

    a. The Special Master’s heightened standard for establishing redressability;
    b. The Special Master's conclusion that, even after establishing injury, Florida bore the burden of proving redressability by clear and convincing evidence;
    c. The Special Master's conclusion that the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers' discretion in operating its facilities precludes a finding of redressability;
    d. The Special Master's failure to account for the ways in which Florida's injuries would be redressed, no matter how the Corps exercises its discretion;
    e. The Special Master’s failure to account for principles of equity and the constitutional role of this Court in resolving disputes among the States; and
    f. The other flaws discussed in the accompanying brief, which addresses these exceptions (and related errors) more fully.[5]
    		 ”

    Outcome and oral arguments

    Click on the tabs below for more information on the outcome and oral arguments in the case during a particular term.

    2020

    See also: Supreme Court cases, October term 2020-2021

    Outcome (2020)

    In a unanimous ruling, the court dismissed Florida's suit against Georgia, holding that Florida did not meet its burden of proof in establishing Georgia's water use caused serious harm to Florida's oyster fisheries or river wildlife and plant life. Justice Amy Coney Barrett delivered the opinion of the court.[1]

    Opinion

    In her opinion, Justice Amy Coney Barrett wrote:[1]

    “ For the second time in three years, we confront a dispute between Florida and Georgia over the proper apportionment of interstate waters. Florida, the downstream State, brought this original action against Georgia, claiming that Georgia consumes more than its fair share of water from an interstate network of rivers. Florida says that Georgia’s overconsumption harms its economic and ecological interests, and it seeks a decree requiring Georgia to reduce its consumption.


    ... We granted Florida leave to file its complaint and referred the case to Special Master Ralph Lancaster, Jr. After 18 months of extensive discovery and a 5-week trial, the Special Master issued a report recommending that Florida be denied relief.

    ... On review of Florida’s exceptions to the Special Master’s Report, we remanded for further proceedings. Florida v. Georgia, 585 U. S. ___.

    ... Soon after our decision in Florida, Special Master Lancaster retired, and we appointed Judge Paul Kelly as the Special Master. Following supplemental briefing and oral argument, Special Master Kelly issued an 81-page report recommending, for several independent reasons, that this Court deny Florida relief. Relevant here, the Special Master concluded that Florida failed to prove by clear and convincing evidence that Georgia’s alleged overconsumption caused serious harm to Florida’s oyster fisheries or its river wildlife and plant life. Second Report of Special Master 8–25.

    ... In short, Florida has not met the exacting standard necessary to warrant the exercise of this Court’s extraordinary authority to control the conduct of a coequal sovereign. We emphasize that Georgia has an obligation to make reasonable use of Basin waters in order to help conserve that increasingly scarce resource. But in light of the record before us, we must overrule Florida’s exceptions to the Special Master’s Report and dismiss the case. [5]

    		”
    —Justice Amy Coney Barrett

    Text of the opinion

    Oral argument

    Audio

    Audio of oral argument:[10]




    Transcript

    Transcript of oral argument:

    2017

    See also: Supreme Court cases, October term 2017-2018

    Outcome (2017)

    Decision

    In a 5-4 decision, the Supreme Court remanded the case back to the special master for further findings.[4]

    Majority opinion

    Justice Stephen Breyer authored the opinion for the court majority, joined by Chief Justice John Roberts and Justices Anthony Kennedy, Ruth Bader Ginsburg, and Sonia Sotomayor. After reviewing the precedents that governed the case, Breyer ruled, "We conclude that the Special Master applied too strict a standard when he determined that the Court would not be able to fashion an appropriate equitable decree." Breyer concluded that the special master's conclusions were premature, writing that the special master "has not yet determined several key remedy-related matters."

    “ We believe the Master’s standard, as indicated by these statements, is too strict. In our view, unless and until the Special Master makes the findings of fact necessary to determine the nature and scope of likely harm caused by the absence of water and the amount of additional water necessary to ameliorate that harm significantly, the complaining State should not have to prove with specificity the details of an eventually workable decree by 'clear and convincing' evidence. Rather, the complaining State should have to show that, applying the principles of 'flexibility' and 'approximation' we discussed above, it is likely to prove possible to fashion such a decree . . . To require 'clear and convincing evidence' about the workability of a decree before the Court or a Special Master has a view about likely harms and likely amelioration is, at least in this case, to put the cart before the horse.[4][11][5] ”


    Breyer remanded the case to the special master for further findings, concluding that Florida "has made a legally sufficient showing as to the possibility of fashioning an effective remedial decree" to justify the continuation of the case.[4]

    Dissent by Justice Thomas

    Justice Clarence Thomas dissented from the court majority's ruling, joined by Justices Samuel Alito, Elena Kagan, and Neil Gorsuch. Thomas believed that the special master's findings were supported by sufficient evidence, and he "would have overruled Florida’s objections to the Special Master’s Report (Report) and denied Florida’s request for relief." Thomas argued that the special master's report provided enough evidence for the court to make a ruling rather than remanding the case, and he believed that none of Florida's objections had merit.[4]

    “ There is no reason to send this case back for a do-over. As the Court acknowledges, 'the ultimate responsibility for deciding what are correct findings of fact remains with us.' We must bring our independent judgment to bear based upon our own independent examination of the record. An independent examination of the record confirms that the Special Master was correct to find that the Corps would not change its operations during droughts if this Court capped Georgia’s water use and thus Florida would not benefit from a cap during droughts. The Special Master also was correct to find that Florida presented no evidence of a benefit during nondroughts. Those findings support a judgment in Georgia’s favor under the traditional balance-of-harms analysis. [4][12][5] ”


    Thomas concluded, "Florida has not shown that it will appreciably benefit from a cap on Georgia’s water use . . . Accordingly, I would have overruled Florida’s objections to the Special Master’s Report and denied Florida’s request for relief."[4]

    Text of the opinion

    Oral argument (2017)

    Audio

    • Audio of oral argument:[13]



    Transcript

    • Transcript of oral argument:[14]

    See also

    External links

    Footnotes

    1. ↑ 1.0 1.1 1.2 United States Supreme Court, "Florida v. Georgia Second Opinion," April 1, 2021
    2. ↑ Supreme Court of the United States, "Monthly Argument Calendar For the Session Beginning February 22, 2021," December 31, 2020
    3. ↑ 3.0 3.1 United States Supreme Court, Florida v. Georgia" Complaint, October 1, 2013
    4. ↑ 4.0 4.1 4.2 4.3 4.4 4.5 4.6 United States Supreme Court, "Florida v. Georgia Opinion," June 27, 2018
    5. ↑ 5.0 5.1 5.2 5.3 5.4 5.5 5.6 Note: This text is quoted verbatim from the original source. Any inconsistencies are attributable to the original source.
    6. ↑ 6.0 6.1 6.2 United States Supreme Court, Florida v. Georgia Special Master's report, February 16, 2017
    7. ↑ United States Supreme Court, Florida v. Georgia Georgia's Reply, July 31, 2017
    8. ↑ United States Court of Appeals for the 10th Circuit, Florida v. Georgia: "Special master's second report," December 11, 2019
    9. ↑ United States Supreme Court Florida v. Georgia Questions Presented, October 10, 2017
    10. ↑ Supreme Court of the United States, "Oral Argument - Audio," accessed February 23, 2021
    11. ↑ Internal citations omitted.
    12. ↑ Internal citations omitted.
    13. ↑ Supreme Court of the United States, Florida v. Georgia, argued January 8, 2018
    14. ↑ Supreme Court of the United States, Florida v. Georgia, argued January 8, 2018
    v • e
    Ballotpedia
    About
    Editorial Content
    Geoff Pallay, Director of Editorial Content and Editor-in-Chief • Ken Carbullido, Vice President of Election Product and Technology Strategy • Norm Leahy, Senior Editor • Daniel Anderson, Managing Editor • Ryan Byrne, Managing Editor • Cory Eucalitto, Managing Editor • Mandy Gillip, Managing Editor • Doug Kronaizl, Local Elections Project Manager • Jaclyn Beran • Marielle Bricker • Joseph Brusgard • Emma Burlingame • Kelly Coyle • Thomas Ellis • Frank Festa • Nicole Fisher • Brianna Hosea • Joseph Greaney • Thomas Grobben • Jaime Healy-Plotkin • Tyler King • Glorie Martinez • Nathan Maxwell • Ellie Mikus • Jackie Mitchell • Ellen Morrissey • Mackenzie Murphy • Kaley Platek • Samantha Post • Adam Powell • Ethan Rice • Spencer Richardson • Victoria Rose • Briana Ryan • Myj Saintyl • Maddy Salucka • Maddie Sinclair Johnson • Abbey Smith • Alexis Thacker • Janie Valentine • Joel Williams • Samuel Wonacott • Trenton Woodcox
    Retrieved from "https://ballotpedia.org/wiki/index.php?title=Florida_v._Georgia&oldid=8891465"