ELR Citation: ELR 20019
No(s). 138 (U.S. Jan 20, 2010)

The U.S. Supreme Court held that an energy company and a water supply company can intervene in a water rights dispute between North Carolina and South Carolina but that a city may not. South Carolina filed suit against North Carolina seeking an equitable apportionment of the Catawba River's waters. Three nonstate parties filed motions to intervene, but only two of them—the energy and water supply companies—satisfied the appropriate intervention standard. An intervenor whose state is already a party has the burden of showing some compelling interest in its own right, apart from its interest in a class with all other citizens and creatures of the state, that is not properly represented by the state. Here, the water supply company has sufficiently compelling interests in the litigation that are unlike the interests of other citizens of the states, and neither state can properly represent those interests in this litigation. Likewise, the energy company demonstrated unique and compelling interests, and neither state is situated to represent those interests. The city's interest, however, is not sufficiently unique and will be properly represented by North Carolina. Alito, J., delivered the opinion of the Court, in which Stevens, Scalia, Kennedy, and Breyer, JJ., joined. Roberts, C.J., filed an opinion concurring in the judgment in part and dissenting in part, in which Thomas, Ginsburg, and Sotomayor, JJ., joined.