UNITED STATES v. MAINE et al. (MASSACHUSETTS BOUNDARY CASE)
No. 35,
Orig.
Decided March 17, 1975 — Decree entered October 6, 1975—
Supplemental decree entered June 15, 1981
The Report of the Special Master is received and ordered filed.
SUPPLEMENTAL DECREE
The Court’s Special Master having filed a Report recommending the entry of a supplemental decree for the purpose of defining with greater particularity the boundary line between the submerged lands of the United States and the submerged lands of the Commonwealth of Massachusetts, as contemplated by the Court’s Decree of October 6, 1975, 423 U. S. 1, and the Court’s Order of June 29, 1977, 433 U. S. 917, appointing the Honorable Walter E. Hoffman as Special Master in this cause, and the United States and the Commonwealth of Massachusetts having stated their acquiescence in the recommendations of the said Report:
It Is Ordered, Adjudged, and Decreed As Follows:
1. The coastline of the Commonwealth of Massachusetts, as that term is used in the Court’s Decree herein dated October 6, 1975, shall be, in the area hereafter specified:
(a) A straight line running southwesterly from a point on the mean low water line at Eastern Point on Cape Ann (approximately 42°34'45" N, 70°39'43" W on NOS Chart 13267, 18th Ed.) to a point on the mean low water line seaward of Strawberry Point (approximately 42°15'31" N, 70°46'05" W on the same NOS Chart), thence southeasterly along the line of ordinary mean low water (including closing lines across Scituate Harbor and the North River) to Brant Rock (approximately 42°05'29" N, 70°38/15" W on the same NOS Chart), thence a straight line running easterly to a point on the mean low water line at Race Point on Cape Cod (approximately 42°03'46" N, 70°14,51// W on the same NOS Chart);
(b) A straight line running southeasterly from a point on the mean low water line at Gooseberry Neck (approximately 41°28'43" N, 71o02'05" W on NOS Chart 13218, 21st Ed.) to a point on the mean low water line on the southwestern extremity of Cuttyhunk Island (approximately 41°24'44" N, 70°57'07" W on the same NOS Chart).
3. The Court retains jurisdiction to entertain such further proceedings, enter such orders, and issue such writs as may from time to time be deemed necessary or advisable to give proper force and effect to this decree or to effectuate the rights of the parties in the premises.
2. The reference to the Special Master appointed by the Court on June 29, 1977, is continued in effect, under the terms of the Court’s Order of that date, and he is directed to proceed with the cause, holding such further proceedings as may seem advisable until all remaining issues referred to him are ready for submission to the Court by his further report.
Justice Marshall took no part in the consideration or decision of this matter.
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.