October Term 2000 · Docket 105 ORIG.
Should Kansas receive prejudgment interest for Colorado's river compact violations?
Kansas seeks damages and interest for Colorado's breach of the Arkansas River Compact.
Verified source milestones
- — An official oral-argument transcript was verified.
- — An official oral-argument transcript was verified.
The arguments, in order
This case may have been argued more than once. Each entry below uses that session's official transcript. Later arguments do not erase earlier ones.
Argument 1 ·
What happened at the argument
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.
Read the official transcript for this argument · Official argument details
Sources used for this argument breakdown
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 21, lines 17-47 — Transcript, file page 21, lines 17-47
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 3, lines 17-45 — Transcript, file page 3, lines 17-45
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 3, lines 5-15 — Transcript, file page 3, lines 5-15
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 30, lines 25-41 — Transcript, file page 30, lines 25-41
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 50, lines 15-43 — Transcript, file page 50, lines 15-43
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 51, lines 19-23 — Transcript, file page 51, lines 19-23
A citizen's guide to the whole case
What this case is about
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.
Official sources for this section
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 21, lines 17-47 — Transcript, file page 21, lines 17-47
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 3, lines 17-45 — Transcript, file page 3, lines 17-45
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 30, lines 25-41 — Transcript, file page 30, lines 25-41
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 50, lines 15-43 — Transcript, file page 50, lines 15-43
How the case got here
The Supreme Court heard oral argument in this case on March 19, 2001.
Official sources for this section
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 3, lines 5-15 — Transcript, file page 3, lines 5-15
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 51, lines 19-23 — Transcript, file page 51, lines 19-23
What each side wants
Kansas wants prejudgment interest added to its damages award.
Colorado wants the Court to reject the interest claim.
Official sources for this section
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 21, lines 17-47 — Transcript, file page 21, lines 17-47
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 3, lines 17-45 — Transcript, file page 3, lines 17-45
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 30, lines 25-41 — Transcript, file page 30, lines 25-41
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 50, lines 15-43 — Transcript, file page 50, lines 15-43
What each side says
Kansas argues the compact allows interest under Article 4(d).
Colorado argues the Master's calculation violates the Eleventh Amendment.
Official sources for this section
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 21, lines 17-47 — Transcript, file page 21, lines 17-47
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 3, lines 17-45 — Transcript, file page 3, lines 17-45
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 30, lines 25-41 — Transcript, file page 30, lines 25-41
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 50, lines 15-43 — Transcript, file page 50, lines 15-43
What the justices asked
Chief Justice Rehnquist asked Mr. Robbins to clarify the North Dakota precedent.
Official sources for this section
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 51, lines 19-23 — Transcript, file page 51, lines 19-23
Why it matters
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.
Official sources for this section
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 21, lines 17-47 — Transcript, file page 21, lines 17-47
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 3, lines 17-45 — Transcript, file page 3, lines 17-45
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 30, lines 25-41 — Transcript, file page 30, lines 25-41
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 50, lines 15-43 — Transcript, file page 50, lines 15-43
What happens next
This article currently covers the argument record. Use the official docket link for later case activity.
Official sources for this section
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 3, lines 5-15 — Transcript, file page 3, lines 5-15
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 51, lines 19-23 — Transcript, file page 51, lines 19-23
Official Court provenance
Official docket and case history · Official Supreme Court oral-argument detail page
Title and summary sources
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 21, lines 17-47 — Transcript, file page 21, lines 17-47
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 3, lines 17-45 — Transcript, file page 3, lines 17-45
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 30, lines 25-41 — Transcript, file page 30, lines 25-41
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 50, lines 15-43 — Transcript, file page 50, lines 15-43
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 21, lines 17-47 — Transcript, file page 21, lines 17-47
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 3, lines 17-45 — Transcript, file page 3, lines 17-45
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 30, lines 25-41 — Transcript, file page 30, lines 25-41
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 50, lines 15-43 — Transcript, file page 50, lines 15-43
Revision history
- Revision 1 · Official Transcript ·
Correction: Rewritten to the concise citizen-facing editorial standard.
- Revision 2 · Official Transcript ·
Correction: Migrated to the dated official Court activity contract without model use.