October Term 2000 · Docket 130 ORIG.
Does a 1976 ruling bar New Hampshire from redrawing its river boundary?
New Hampshire seeks to redraw its river boundary. Maine and the United States argue a 1976 ruling bars this request.
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
Paul Stern argued Maine's motion to dismiss relies on res judicata.
Paul Stern noted the boundary location depends on the river's middle.
Paul Stern stated the location determines how much territory each state holds.
Paul Stern asked the court to dismiss New Hampshire's complaint.
Read the official transcript for this argument · Official argument details
Sources used for this argument breakdown
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 14, lines 27-45 — Transcript, file page 14, lines 27-45
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 22, lines 17-1 — Transcript, file page 22, lines 17-1
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 3, lines 17-29 — Transcript, file page 3, lines 17-29
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 3, lines 5-15 — Transcript, file page 3, lines 5-15
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 48, lines 1-35 — Transcript, file page 48, lines 1-35
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 49, lines 37-39 — Transcript, file page 49, lines 37-39
A citizen's guide to the whole case
What this case is about
New Hampshire wants to redraw its river boundary. Maine and the United States want the court to dismiss the case. They cite a 1976 ruling as a bar.
Official sources for this section
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 14, lines 27-45 — Transcript, file page 14, lines 27-45
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 22, lines 17-1 — Transcript, file page 22, lines 17-1
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 3, lines 17-29 — Transcript, file page 3, lines 17-29
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 48, lines 1-35 — Transcript, file page 48, lines 1-35
How the case got here
The Supreme Court heard oral argument in this case on April 16, 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 49, lines 37-39 — Transcript, file page 49, lines 37-39
What each side wants
New Hampshire wants to redraw its river boundary.
Maine and the United States want the court to dismiss the case.
Official sources for this section
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 14, lines 27-45 — Transcript, file page 14, lines 27-45
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 22, lines 17-1 — Transcript, file page 22, lines 17-1
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 3, lines 17-29 — Transcript, file page 3, lines 17-29
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 48, lines 1-35 — Transcript, file page 48, lines 1-35
What each side says
New Hampshire argues the 1976 ruling does not bar its new claim.
Maine and the United States argue the 1976 ruling bars the current suit.
Official sources for this section
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 14, lines 27-45 — Transcript, file page 14, lines 27-45
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 22, lines 17-1 — Transcript, file page 22, lines 17-1
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 3, lines 17-29 — Transcript, file page 3, lines 17-29
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 48, lines 1-35 — Transcript, file page 48, lines 1-35
What the justices asked
Does the 1976 ruling bar New Hampshire's current boundary claim?
Official sources for this section
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 49, lines 37-39 — Transcript, file page 49, lines 37-39
Why it matters
The outcome determines the exact location of the state border. It defines which state controls the river territory. It resolves the dispute over the 1740 decree.
Official sources for this section
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 14, lines 27-45 — Transcript, file page 14, lines 27-45
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 22, lines 17-1 — Transcript, file page 22, lines 17-1
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 3, lines 17-29 — Transcript, file page 3, lines 17-29
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 48, lines 1-35 — Transcript, file page 48, lines 1-35
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 49, lines 37-39 — Transcript, file page 49, lines 37-39
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 14, lines 27-45 — Transcript, file page 14, lines 27-45
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 22, lines 17-1 — Transcript, file page 22, lines 17-1
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 3, lines 17-29 — Transcript, file page 3, lines 17-29
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 48, lines 1-35 — Transcript, file page 48, lines 1-35
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 14, lines 27-45 — Transcript, file page 14, lines 27-45
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 22, lines 17-1 — Transcript, file page 22, lines 17-1
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 3, lines 17-29 — Transcript, file page 3, lines 17-29
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 48, lines 1-35 — Transcript, file page 48, lines 1-35
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.