October Term 2014 · Docket 126 ORIG.

Should the Court revise a water-sharing formula that yields unexpected results?

Kansas and Nebraska dispute whether a court can fix a water-sharing formula that produces unanticipated allocations.

Official caption
Kansas v. Nebraska
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

    Kansas argues the parties accepted the formula's potential inaccuracies during negotiations.

    Nebraska argues the Court should correct the formula if it contains a mistake.

    The United States argues disgorgement must remain an available remedy for compact breaches.

    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

Kansas and Nebraska argue over a water-sharing formula. Kansas wants the formula to stay as written. Nebraska wants the Court to fix the formula if it yields errors.

Official sources for this section

How the case got here

The Supreme Court heard oral argument in this case on October 14, 2014.

Official sources for this section

What each side wants

Kansas wants the Court to keep the water formula unchanged.

Nebraska wants the Court to revise the water formula if it is wrong.

Official sources for this section

What each side says

Kansas argues the parties agreed to the formula despite potential inaccuracies.

Nebraska argues the Court should fix the formula if it contains a mistake.

Official sources for this section

What the justices asked

Chief Justice Roberts asked if the Court lacks authority to revise a formula that yields unexpected results.

Justice Breyer asked what a court should do when parties agree a formula contains a mistake.

Official sources for this section

Why it matters

This case defines how courts handle errors in interstate water-sharing agreements. It sets the standard for fixing formulas that produce unanticipated allocations. The outcome affects how states manage shared water resources during scarcity.

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