"Today, the Supreme Court held that two non-sovereign entities may intervene in an original jurisdiction case. Of note, it appears that for the first time, the Court allowed a non-sovereign entity to intervene in an original jurisdiction case. The majority’s reference to Indian tribes is trouble, especially in light of the dissent’s response.

Here is the majority:

Over the “strong objections” of three States, for example, the Court allowed Indian tribes to intervene in a sovereign dispute concerning the equitable apportionment of the Colorado River. Arizona v. California, 460 U. S., at 613. The Court did so notwithstanding the Tribes’ simultaneous representation by the United States. Id., at 608–609, 612. Over the “strong objections” of three States, for example, the Court allowed Indian tribes to intervene in a sovereign dispute concerning the equitable apportionment of the Colorado River. Arizona v. California, 460 U. S., at 613. The Court did so notwithstanding the Tribes’ simultaneous representation by the United States. Id., at 608–609, 612.

It seems the majority implicitly characterized Indian tribes (and the City of Port Arthur, Texas) as a non-sovereign in order to stress the non-importance of today’s decision. One shouldn’t read too much into this, of course. But still…. Uggh."

Get the Story:
Supreme Court Colloquy on Indian Tribes as Intervenors in Original Jurisdiction Cases (Turtle Talk 1/20)

Supreme Court Decision:
South Carolina v. North Carolina (January 20, 2010)