Kansas v. Nebraska

Kansas v. Nebraska
Supreme Court of the United States
Decided February 24, 2015
Full case name	Kansas v. Nebraska
Citations	574 U.S. 445 ( more )
Holding
When a state knowingly fails to comply with an interstate compact, the Supreme Court may order that state to disgorge its profits from the violation or pay damages. If there is no danger of the violation happening again, no injunctive relief is necessary.
Court membership
Chief Justice John Roberts Associate Justices Antonin Scalia  · Anthony Kennedy Clarence Thomas  · Ruth Bader Ginsburg Stephen Breyer  · Samuel Alito Sonia Sotomayor  · Elena Kagan
Case opinions
Majority	Kagan
Concur/dissent	Roberts
Concur/dissent	Scalia
Concur/dissent	Thomas, joined by Scalia, Alito; Roberts (Part III)

Kansas v. Nebraska, 574 U.S. 445(2015), was a United States Supreme Court case in which the court held that, when a state knowingly fails to comply with an interstate compact, the Supreme Court may order that state to disgorge its profits from the violation or pay damages. If there is no danger of the violation happening again, no injunctive relief is necessary. ^{[1] [2]}

Background

In 1943, Congress approved the Republican River Compact, an interstate compact between Kansas, Nebraska, and Colorado to apportion the "virgin water originating in" the Republican River Basin. In 1998, Kansas filed an original action in the United States Supreme Court contending that Nebraska's increased groundwater pumping was subject to regulation by the Compact to the extent that it depleted stream flow in the Basin. The court agreed. Ensuing negotiations resulted in the 2002 Final Settlement Stipulation (Settlement), which established mechanisms to accurately measure water and promote compliance with the Compact. The Settlement identified the Accounting Procedures, a technical appendix, as the tool by which the States would measure stream flow depletion, and thus consumption, due to groundwater pumping. The Settlement also reaffirmed that "imported water"—that is, water brought into the Basin by human activity—would not count toward a State's consumption. Again, the Accounting Procedures were to measure, so as to exclude, that water flow. ^[1]

In 2007, following the first post-Settlement accounting period, Kansas petitioned this Court for monetary and injunctive relief, claiming that Nebraska had substantially exceeded its water allocation. Nebraska responded that the Accounting Procedures improperly charged the State for using imported water and requested that the Accounting Procedures be modified accordingly. The Court appointed a Special Master. His report concluded that Nebraska "knowingly failed" to comply with the Compact, recommended that Nebraska disgorge a portion of its gains in addition to paying damages for Kansas's loss, and recommended denying Kansas's request for an injunction. In addition, the report recommended reforming the Accounting Procedures. The parties filed exceptions. ^[1]

Opinion of the court

The Supreme Court issued an opinion on February 24, 2015. ^[1]

Subsequent developments

The case returned to a Special Master, and the Supreme Court entered another judgment in the case on March 9, 2015. ^[3]

References

1. Kansas v. Nebraska, 574 U.S. 445 (2015).
2. Longest, Ryke (March 3, 2015). "Opinion analysis: Bargaining in the shadow of equitable apportionment". SCOTUSblog. Retrieved August 20, 2025.
3. Kansas v. Nebraska, 575 U.S. 134 (2015).

External links

• Text of Kansas v. Nebraska, 574 U.S. 445(2015) is available from: Cornell Findlaw Justia

This article incorporates written opinion of a United States federal court. As a work of the U.S. federal government, the text is in the public domain .