UNITED STATES v. LOUISIANA et al. (LOUISIANA BOUNDARY CASE)
No. 9,
Orig.
Argued February 24, 1975
Decided March 17, 1975
Louis F. Claiborne argued the cause for the United States. With him on the briefs were Solicitor General Bork, Assistant Attorney General Johnson, and Bruce C. Rashkow.
Oliver P. Stockwell and Frederick W. Ellis, Special Assistant Attorneys General of Louisiana, argued the cause for defendants. With them on the briefs were William J. Guste, Jr., Attorney General, and Paul M. Hebert, Victor A. Sachse, and William E. Shaddock, Special Assistant Attorneys General.
Decree.
Upon consideration of the Report filed July 31, 1974, by Walter P. Armstrong, Jr., Special Master, of the exceptions filed thereto by the United States and by the State of Louisiana, and after oral argument thereon, It Is Now Ordered, Adjudged, and Decreed as Follows:
1. The exceptions filed by the United States to the Report and recommendations of the Special Master are overruled.
2. The exceptions filed by the State of Louisiana to the Report and recommendations of the Special Master are overruled.
3. The recommendations contained dn the Report of the Special Master are accepted.
4. The parties are directed to prepare and file a decree, for entry by this Court, establishing “a baseline along the entire coast of the State of Louisiana from which the extent of the territorial waters under the jurisdiction of the State of Louisiana pursuant to the Submerged Lands Act can be measured.” Report of the Special Master 53. If the parties cannot agree upon the form of the decree, then they shall refer any remaining disputes to the Special Master for his recommendations. In the event of such a referral, the Special Master is authorized to hold such hearings, take such evidence, and conduct such proceedings as he may deem appropriate and, in due course, to report his recommendations to this Court.
It is so ordered.
Mr. Justice Douglas and Mr. Justice Maeshall took no part in the consideration or decision of this case.
What follows is an opinion from the Supreme Court of the United States. Your task is to determine the bases on which the Supreme Court rested its decision with regard to the legal provision that the Court considered in the case. Consider "judicial review (national level)" if the majority determined the constitutionality of some action taken by some unit or official of the federal government, including an interstate compact. Consider "judicial review (state level)" if the majority determined the constitutionality of some action taken by some unit or official of a state or local government. Consider "statutory construction" for cases where the majority interpret a federal statute, treaty, or court rule; if the Court interprets a federal statute governing the powers or jurisdiction of a federal court; if the Court construes a state law as incompatible with a federal law; or if an administrative official interprets a federal statute. Do not consider "statutory construction" where an administrative agency or official acts "pursuant to" a statute, unless the Court interprets the statute to determine if administrative action is proper. Consider "interpretation of administrative regulation or rule, or executive order" if the majority treats federal administrative action in arriving at its decision.Consider "diversity jurisdiction" if the majority said in approximately so many words that under its diversity jurisdiction it is interpreting state law. Consider "federal common law" if the majority indicate that it used a judge-made "doctrine" or "rule; if the Court without more merely specifies the disposition the Court has made of the case and cites one or more of its own previously decided cases unless the citation is qualified by the word "see."; if the case concerns admiralty or maritime law, or some other aspect of the law of nations other than a treaty; if the case concerns the retroactive application of a constitutional provision or a previous decision of the Court; if the case concerns an exclusionary rule, the harmless error rule (though not the statute), the abstention doctrine, comity, res judicata, or collateral estoppel; or if the case concerns a "rule" or "doctrine" that is not specified as related to or connected with a constitutional or statutory provision. Consider "Supreme Court supervision of lower federal or state courts or original jurisdiction" otherwise (i.e., the residual code); for issues pertaining to non-statutorily based Judicial Power topics; for cases arising under the Court's original jurisdiction; in cases in which the Court denied or dismissed the petition for review or where the decision of a lower court is affirmed by a tie vote; or in workers' compensation litigation involving statutory interpretation and, in addition, a discussion of jury determination and/or the sufficiency of the evidence.