October Term 2023 · Docket 141 ORIG.

Can the United States veto a Rio Grande water settlement between Texas and New Mexico?

Texas and New Mexico seek a water settlement. The United States opposes the decree. The Court must decide if federal consent is required.

Official caption
Texas v. New Mexico and Colorado
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

    Mr. Liu argued the decree binds the United States without consent.

    Mr. Wechsler argued the United States lacks a veto over state settlements.

    Ms. Pettit stated the Compact divides water 57 percent to New Mexico.

    Ms. Pettit noted Texas and New Mexico agreed on water shares.

    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

This case involves the Rio Grande Compact. Texas and New Mexico want to settle their water dispute. The United States argues the settlement binds it without consent. The Court must resolve this conflict.

Official sources for this section

How the case got here

The Supreme Court heard oral argument in this case on March 20, 2024.

Official sources for this section

What each side wants

Texas and New Mexico want the Court to approve their water settlement.

The United States wants the Court to reject the proposed consent decree.

Official sources for this section

What each side says

Texas and New Mexico argue the United States lacks a veto over state settlements.

The United States argues the decree imposes obligations without its consent.

Official sources for this section

What the justices asked

Justice Thomas asked why the United States remains if its interest matches Texas.

Justice Gorsuch asked how the United States aligns with Texas while opposing the decree.

Official sources for this section

Why it matters

This dispute determines how federal agencies manage interstate water compacts. It defines the scope of federal intervention in state water rights. The outcome shapes future negotiations between states and the federal government.

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