ARIZONA v. CALIFORNIA et al.
No. 10,
Original.
Argued December 8, 1955.
Decided December 12, 1955.
George I. Haight served as Special Master by appointment of the Court, 347 U. S. 986, and filed the report on which this ruling was made. After his death, Simon H. Rifkind was appointed Special Master, 350 U. S. 812.
John P. Frank and Ernest W. McFarland argued the cause for the State of Arizona, complainant. On the brief were Robert Morrison, Attorney General, John H. Moeur, Mr. Frank, John Geoffrey Will, Burr Sutter, Perry Ling and Theodore Kiendl.
Northcutt Ely, Assistant Attorney General of California, argued the cause for defendants. On the brief were Edmund G. Brown, Attorney General, Mr. Ely, Robert L. McCarty, Prentiss Moore and Gilbert F. Nelson, Assistant Attorneys General, and Charles E. Corker, Howard I. Friedman, Burton J. Gindler, James B. Mc-Kenney, John R. Alexander and George Brody, Deputy Attorneys General, for the State of California, Francis E. Jenney for the Palo Verde Irrigation District, Harry W. Horton and R. L. Knox, Jr. for the Imperial Irrigation District, Earl Redwine for the Coachella Valley County Water District, James H. Howard, Charles C. Cooper, Jr., Donald M. Keith, Alan Patten and Frank P. Doherty for the Metropolitan Water District of Southern California, Roger Arnebergh for the City of Los Angeles, and T. B. Cosgrove for the City of San Diego, defendants.
W. T. Mathews, Special Assistant Attorney General, argued the cause for the State of Nevada, Intervener. With him on the brief were Harvey Dickerson, Attorney General, and Wm. J. Kane, Special Assistant Attorney General.
Hatfield Chilson, Special Assistant Attorney General of Colorado, argued the cause for the States of Colorado, New Mexico, Utah and Wyoming. On the brief were Duke W. Dunbar, Attorney General, and Mr. Chilson for the State of Colorado, Richard Robinson, Attorney General, and Fred E. Wilson for the State of New Mexico, E. R. Callister, Attorney General, and Dennis McCarthy, Special Assistant Attorney General, for the State of Utah, and George F. Guy, Attorney General, for the State of Wyoming.
Per Curiam.
The motion of California to join the States of Colorado and Wyoming as parties to this cause is denied. The motion to join Utah and New Mexico as parties is granted only to the extent of their interest in Lower Basin waters.
Mr. Justice Frankfurter, Mr. Justice Burton, and Mr. Justice Harlan would grant the motion.
The Chief Justice did not participate in this proceeding.
What follows is an opinion from the Supreme Court of the United States. Your task is to determine the ideological "direction" of the decision ("liberal", "conservative", or "unspecifiable"). Use "unspecifiable" if the issue does not lend itself to a liberal or conservative description (e.g., a boundary dispute between two states, real property, wills and estates), or because no convention exists as to which is the liberal side and which is the conservative side (e.g., the legislative veto). Specification of the ideological direction comports with conventional usage. In the context of issues pertaining to criminal procedure, civil rights, First Amendment, due process, privacy, and attorneys, consider liberal to be pro-person accused or convicted of crime, or denied a jury trial, pro-civil liberties or civil rights claimant, especially those exercising less protected civil rights (e.g., homosexuality), pro-child or juvenile, pro-indigent pro-Indian, pro-affirmative action, pro-neutrality in establishment clause cases, pro-female in abortion, pro-underdog, anti-slavery, incorporation of foreign territories anti-government in the context of due process, except for takings clause cases where a pro-government, anti-owner vote is considered liberal except in criminal forfeiture cases or those where the taking is pro-business violation of due process by exercising jurisdiction over nonresident, pro-attorney or governmental official in non-liability cases, pro-accountability and/or anti-corruption in campaign spending pro-privacy vis-a-vis the 1st Amendment where the privacy invaded is that of mental incompetents, pro-disclosure in Freedom of Information Act issues except for employment and student records. In the context of issues pertaining to unions and economic activity, consider liberal to be pro-union except in union antitrust where liberal = pro-competition, pro-government, anti-business anti-employer, pro-competition, pro-injured person, pro-indigent, pro-small business vis-a-vis large business pro-state/anti-business in state tax cases, pro-debtor, pro-bankrupt, pro-Indian, pro-environmental protection, pro-economic underdog pro-consumer, pro-accountability in governmental corruption, pro-original grantee, purchaser, or occupant in state and territorial land claims anti-union member or employee vis-a-vis union, anti-union in union antitrust, anti-union in union or closed shop, pro-trial in arbitration. In the context of issues pertaining to judicial power, consider liberal to be pro-exercise of judicial power, pro-judicial "activism", pro-judicial review of administrative action. In the context of issues pertaining to federalism, consider liberal to be pro-federal power, pro-executive power in executive/congressional disputes, anti-state. In the context of issues pertaining to federal taxation, consider liberal to be pro-United States and conservative pro-taxpayer. In miscellaneous, consider conservative the incorporation of foreign territories and executive authority vis-a-vis congress or the states or judcial authority vis-a-vis state or federal legislative authority, and consider liberal legislative veto. In interstate relations and private law issues, consider unspecifiable in all cases.