October Term 2009 · Docket 138 ORIG.

Can private water users join a state water dispute?

South Carolina and North Carolina fight over Catawba River water. Private entities want to join the case.

Official caption
South Carolina v. North Carolina
Latest argument session
Latest official Court activity
Latest verified event
Argued
Sources analyzed through
Official Transcript

Verified source milestones

  1. — An official oral-argument transcript was verified.
  2. — 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.

  1. Argument 1 ·

    What happened at the argument

    South Carolina argues private users lack a separate compelling interest.

    North Carolina argues private users are directly affected by the outcome.

    Justice Scalia questioned the practical impact of denying intervention.

    Justice Ginsburg noted trial judges have discretion on intervention rules.

    Read the official transcript for this argument · Official argument details

    Sources used for this argument breakdown

A citizen's guide to the whole case

What this case is about

South Carolina seeks equitable apportionment of the Catawba River. North Carolina opposes this request. Private entities want to intervene in the dispute.

Official sources for this section

How the case got here

The Supreme Court heard oral argument in this case on October 13, 2009.

Official sources for this section

What each side wants

South Carolina wants equitable apportionment of the river.

North Carolina wants to limit South Carolina's water use.

Official sources for this section

What each side says

South Carolina argues private users lack standing to intervene.

North Carolina argues private users have a compelling interest.

Official sources for this section

What the justices asked

Justice Scalia asked why private entities should not intervene.

Justice Ginsburg asked about trial judge discretion on intervention.

Official sources for this section

Why it matters

This case defines who can join state water disputes. It affects how states manage shared river resources. It clarifies the role of private users in interstate conflicts.

Official sources for this section

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 Court provenance

Official docket and case history · Official Supreme Court oral-argument detail page

Title and summary sources

Revision history

  1. Revision 1 · Official Transcript ·

    Correction: Rewritten to the concise citizen-facing editorial standard.

  2. Revision 2 · Official Transcript ·

    Correction: Migrated to the dated official Court activity contract without model use.

Download this sanitized case as JSON