{"argument_date":"2001-03-19T00:00:00Z","arguments":[{"argument_date":"2001-03-19T00:00:00Z","heading":"What happened at the argument","official_detail_url":"https://www.supremecourt.gov/oral_arguments/argument_transcript/2000","official_transcript_url":"https://www.supremecourt.gov/pdfs/transcripts/2000/105orig.pdf","paragraphs":["Mr. Draper represented Kansas. He argued the case returned after the 1995 violation finding. He focused on the Master's proposed remedy.","Mr. Robbins represented Colorado. He cited North Dakota v. Minnesota. He argued the Court should limit the remedy to an injunction.","Mr. Minear represented the United States. He argued the damages calculation does not violate the Eleventh Amendment. He supported allowing prejudgment interest on a discretionary basis."],"reargument":false,"sequence":1,"sources":[{"evidence_type":"Transcript","label":"Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 21, lines 17-47","official_url":"https://www.supremecourt.gov/pdfs/transcripts/2000/105orig.pdf","page_label":"file page 21, lines 17-47"},{"evidence_type":"Transcript","label":"Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 3, lines 17-45","official_url":"https://www.supremecourt.gov/pdfs/transcripts/2000/105orig.pdf","page_label":"file page 3, lines 17-45"},{"evidence_type":"Transcript","label":"Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 3, lines 5-15","official_url":"https://www.supremecourt.gov/pdfs/transcripts/2000/105orig.pdf","page_label":"file page 3, lines 5-15"},{"evidence_type":"Transcript","label":"Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 30, lines 25-41","official_url":"https://www.supremecourt.gov/pdfs/transcripts/2000/105orig.pdf","page_label":"file page 30, lines 25-41"},{"evidence_type":"Transcript","label":"Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 50, lines 15-43","official_url":"https://www.supremecourt.gov/pdfs/transcripts/2000/105orig.pdf","page_label":"file page 50, lines 15-43"},{"evidence_type":"Transcript","label":"Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 51, lines 19-23","official_url":"https://www.supremecourt.gov/pdfs/transcripts/2000/105orig.pdf","page_label":"file page 51, lines 19-23"}]}],"caption":"Kansas v. Colorado","case_history":[{"changed_at":"2026-08-29T20:06:33.223790Z","explanation":"An official oral-argument transcript was verified.","status":"argued"},{"changed_at":"2026-08-29T20:06:33.247671Z","explanation":"An official oral-argument transcript was verified.","status":"argued"}],"case_status":"argued","dek":"Kansas seeks damages and interest for Colorado's breach of the Arkansas River Compact.","dek_sources":[{"evidence_type":"Transcript","label":"Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 21, lines 17-47","official_url":"https://www.supremecourt.gov/pdfs/transcripts/2000/105orig.pdf","page_label":"file page 21, lines 17-47"},{"evidence_type":"Transcript","label":"Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 3, lines 17-45","official_url":"https://www.supremecourt.gov/pdfs/transcripts/2000/105orig.pdf","page_label":"file page 3, lines 17-45"},{"evidence_type":"Transcript","label":"Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 30, lines 25-41","official_url":"https://www.supremecourt.gov/pdfs/transcripts/2000/105orig.pdf","page_label":"file page 30, lines 25-41"},{"evidence_type":"Transcript","label":"Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 50, lines 15-43","official_url":"https://www.supremecourt.gov/pdfs/transcripts/2000/105orig.pdf","page_label":"file page 50, lines 15-43"}],"dispositions":[],"latest_court_document_date":"2001-03-19T00:00:00Z","maturity":"official_transcript","official_detail_url":"https://www.supremecourt.gov/oral_arguments/argument_transcript/2000","official_disposition_urls":[],"official_docket_url":"https://www.supremecourt.gov/docket/docketfiles/html/public/105%20ORIG..html","primary_docket":"105 ORIG.","revisions":[{"correction_note":"Rewritten to the concise citizen-facing editorial standard.","created_at":"2026-08-31T18:02:31.356032Z","maturity":"official_transcript","revision_number":1},{"correction_note":"Migrated to the dated official Court activity contract without model use.","created_at":"2026-09-05T03:22:24Z","maturity":"official_transcript","revision_number":2}],"schema_version":"1.1","sections":[{"heading":"What this case is about","paragraphs":["Kansas sued Colorado over water rights. The Court found Colorado violated the compact in 1995. The case returned to a Special Master for damages. Kansas now seeks prejudgment interest. Colorado opposes this specific remedy. The United States supports allowing interest."],"sources":[{"evidence_type":"Transcript","label":"Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 21, lines 17-47","official_url":"https://www.supremecourt.gov/pdfs/transcripts/2000/105orig.pdf","page_label":"file page 21, lines 17-47"},{"evidence_type":"Transcript","label":"Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 3, lines 17-45","official_url":"https://www.supremecourt.gov/pdfs/transcripts/2000/105orig.pdf","page_label":"file page 3, lines 17-45"},{"evidence_type":"Transcript","label":"Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 30, lines 25-41","official_url":"https://www.supremecourt.gov/pdfs/transcripts/2000/105orig.pdf","page_label":"file page 30, lines 25-41"},{"evidence_type":"Transcript","label":"Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 50, lines 15-43","official_url":"https://www.supremecourt.gov/pdfs/transcripts/2000/105orig.pdf","page_label":"file page 50, lines 15-43"}]},{"heading":"How the case got here","paragraphs":["The Supreme Court heard oral argument in this case on March 19, 2001."],"sources":[{"evidence_type":"Transcript","label":"Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 3, lines 5-15","official_url":"https://www.supremecourt.gov/pdfs/transcripts/2000/105orig.pdf","page_label":"file page 3, lines 5-15"},{"evidence_type":"Transcript","label":"Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 51, lines 19-23","official_url":"https://www.supremecourt.gov/pdfs/transcripts/2000/105orig.pdf","page_label":"file page 51, lines 19-23"}]},{"heading":"What each side wants","paragraphs":["Kansas wants prejudgment interest added to its damages award.","Colorado wants the Court to reject the interest claim."],"sources":[{"evidence_type":"Transcript","label":"Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 21, lines 17-47","official_url":"https://www.supremecourt.gov/pdfs/transcripts/2000/105orig.pdf","page_label":"file page 21, lines 17-47"},{"evidence_type":"Transcript","label":"Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 3, lines 17-45","official_url":"https://www.supremecourt.gov/pdfs/transcripts/2000/105orig.pdf","page_label":"file page 3, lines 17-45"},{"evidence_type":"Transcript","label":"Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 30, lines 25-41","official_url":"https://www.supremecourt.gov/pdfs/transcripts/2000/105orig.pdf","page_label":"file page 30, lines 25-41"},{"evidence_type":"Transcript","label":"Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 50, lines 15-43","official_url":"https://www.supremecourt.gov/pdfs/transcripts/2000/105orig.pdf","page_label":"file page 50, lines 15-43"}]},{"heading":"What each side says","paragraphs":["Kansas argues the compact allows interest under Article 4(d).","Colorado argues the Master's calculation violates the Eleventh Amendment."],"sources":[{"evidence_type":"Transcript","label":"Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 21, lines 17-47","official_url":"https://www.supremecourt.gov/pdfs/transcripts/2000/105orig.pdf","page_label":"file page 21, lines 17-47"},{"evidence_type":"Transcript","label":"Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 3, lines 17-45","official_url":"https://www.supremecourt.gov/pdfs/transcripts/2000/105orig.pdf","page_label":"file page 3, lines 17-45"},{"evidence_type":"Transcript","label":"Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 30, lines 25-41","official_url":"https://www.supremecourt.gov/pdfs/transcripts/2000/105orig.pdf","page_label":"file page 30, lines 25-41"},{"evidence_type":"Transcript","label":"Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 50, lines 15-43","official_url":"https://www.supremecourt.gov/pdfs/transcripts/2000/105orig.pdf","page_label":"file page 50, lines 15-43"}]},{"heading":"What the justices asked","paragraphs":["Chief Justice Rehnquist asked Mr. Robbins to clarify the North Dakota precedent."],"sources":[{"evidence_type":"Transcript","label":"Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 51, lines 19-23","official_url":"https://www.supremecourt.gov/pdfs/transcripts/2000/105orig.pdf","page_label":"file page 51, lines 19-23"}]},{"heading":"Why it matters","paragraphs":["This case defines how states calculate compensation for water compact breaches. It sets the standard for financial remedies in interstate disputes. It clarifies the scope of the Eleventh Amendment in these suits."],"sources":[{"evidence_type":"Transcript","label":"Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 21, lines 17-47","official_url":"https://www.supremecourt.gov/pdfs/transcripts/2000/105orig.pdf","page_label":"file page 21, lines 17-47"},{"evidence_type":"Transcript","label":"Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 3, lines 17-45","official_url":"https://www.supremecourt.gov/pdfs/transcripts/2000/105orig.pdf","page_label":"file page 3, lines 17-45"},{"evidence_type":"Transcript","label":"Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 30, lines 25-41","official_url":"https://www.supremecourt.gov/pdfs/transcripts/2000/105orig.pdf","page_label":"file page 30, lines 25-41"},{"evidence_type":"Transcript","label":"Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 50, lines 15-43","official_url":"https://www.supremecourt.gov/pdfs/transcripts/2000/105orig.pdf","page_label":"file page 50, lines 15-43"}]},{"heading":"What happens next","paragraphs":["This article currently covers the argument record. Use the official docket link for later case activity."],"sources":[{"evidence_type":"Transcript","label":"Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 3, lines 5-15","official_url":"https://www.supremecourt.gov/pdfs/transcripts/2000/105orig.pdf","page_label":"file page 3, lines 5-15"},{"evidence_type":"Transcript","label":"Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 51, lines 19-23","official_url":"https://www.supremecourt.gov/pdfs/transcripts/2000/105orig.pdf","page_label":"file page 51, lines 19-23"}]}],"slug":"2000-105-orig-kansas-v-colorado","term":"2000","title":"Should Kansas receive prejudgment interest for Colorado's river compact violations?","title_sources":[{"evidence_type":"Transcript","label":"Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 21, lines 17-47","official_url":"https://www.supremecourt.gov/pdfs/transcripts/2000/105orig.pdf","page_label":"file page 21, lines 17-47"},{"evidence_type":"Transcript","label":"Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 3, lines 17-45","official_url":"https://www.supremecourt.gov/pdfs/transcripts/2000/105orig.pdf","page_label":"file page 3, lines 17-45"},{"evidence_type":"Transcript","label":"Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 30, lines 25-41","official_url":"https://www.supremecourt.gov/pdfs/transcripts/2000/105orig.pdf","page_label":"file page 30, lines 25-41"},{"evidence_type":"Transcript","label":"Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 50, lines 15-43","official_url":"https://www.supremecourt.gov/pdfs/transcripts/2000/105orig.pdf","page_label":"file page 50, lines 15-43"}],"topics":[],"undated_disposition_date_fallback":null,"updated_at":"2026-09-05T03:22:24Z"}