EQUITY

Florida v. Georgia

Issues

Can Florida obtain an apportionment of the waters of the Apalachicola-Chattahoochee-Flint River Basin to permit fresh water to flow into the Apalachicola Region?

Court below

Original Jurisdiction

This case asks the Supreme Court to decide whether Florida is entitled to an apportionment of the waters of the Apalachicola-Chattahoochee-Flint River Basin against Georgia. Plaintiff Florida argues that Georgia’s use of the water is unreasonable because of mismanagement and waste and that Georgia’s use harms Florida’s oyster fisheries. Florida argues that it is entitled to relief because even an extra 1,000 cubic feet per second (“cfs”) of water will greatly benefit Florida, whereas the cost to Georgia is low and can be mitigated by water conservation methods. Defendant Georgia argues that Georgia’s use is reasonable because Florida’s models for consumption are incorrect and that the water is used for important purposes such as irrigation. Georgia also argues that a cap on its consumption would yield little benefit to Florida because of how the United States Army Corps of Engineers operates its dams and reservoirs and would be extremely costly for Georgia to implement. The outcome of this case will have implications for the sharing of water resources by neighboring states, state economies, and the environment.

Questions as Framed for the Court by the Parties

Whether Florida is entitled to equitable apportionment of the waters of the Apalachicola-Chattahoochee-Flint River Basin and appropriate injunctive relief against Georgia to sustain an adequate flow of fresh water into the Apalachicola Region.

The Apalachicola-Chattahoochee-Flint River Basin is an interstate basin created by the confluence of three rivers—the Chattahoochee River, the Flint River, and the Apalachicola River. Florida v.

Written by

tsharma

awhistler

Edited by

akingsbury

Additional Resources

Ellen M. Gilmer, Supreme Court Sets February Date for Florida-Georgia Water Clash, Bloomberg Law (Dec. 31, 2020).

Lynn Hatter, Special Master Again Sides With Georiga In ‘Water War’ Over Apalachicola Bay, WFSU Public Media (Dec. 12, 2019).
Pamela King, Climate Change Unleashes Interstate Water Wars, E&E News (May 6, 2020).
Walter Wright, Florida v. Georgia/Interstate Water Dispute: U.S. Supreme Court Special Master Report, JD Supra (Dec. 18, 2019).

Submit for publication

Read more about Florida v. Georgia

Menominee Indian Tribe of Wisconsin v. United States of America, et al.

Issues

Whether the D.C. Circuit misapplied Holland’s decision when it ruled that the statute of limitations was not subject to equitable tolling for claims brought under the Indian Self Determination and Education Assistance Act (“ISDA”)? See Brief for Petitioner at i.

Court below

United States Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit

The U.S. Supreme Court will decide whether the D.C. Circuit misapplied the Court’s decision in Holland v. Florida when the D.C. Circuit ruled that the statute of limitations was not subject to equitable tolling for the Menominee Indian Tribe of Wisconsin’s (“the Tribe”) 1996–1998 claims for contract support costs. See Brief for Respondent at i. The Tribe argues that despite the D.C. Circuit’s interpretation of the Holland standard for equitable tolling as rigid and mechanical, the Holland standard should instead conform to the Federal Circuit standard, which is a comprehensive and unified analysis that also follows the proper interpretation of Holland. See Brief for Petitioner at 5–6. In contrast, the United States argues that the elements within a comprehensive analysis do not provide an independent basis for equitable tolling, and that equitable tolling should not excuse the Tribe’s miscalculations and legal misunderstandings. See Brief for Respondent at 21–22, 48.

Questions as Framed for the Court by the Parties

Petitioner: Whether the D.C. Circuit misapplied this Court’s Holland decision when it ruled that the Tribe was not entitled to equitable tolling of the statute of limitations for filing of ISDA claims under the CDA? See Brief for Petitioner at i.

Respondent: Whether the court of appeals misapplied this Court’s decision in Holland v. Florida, when it ruled that petitioner was not entitled to equitable tolling of the statute of limitations for filing of ISDA claims under the CDA? See Brief for Respondent at I.

Between 1995 and 2004, the Tribe provided healthcare services to its members pursuant to a self-determination contract with the Secretary of Health and Human Services (“HHS”). Menominee Indian Tribe of Wis. v. United States, 764 F.3d 51, 54 (U.S. App. 2014).