California v. Arizona et al.
440 U.S. 59 · No. 78 ORIG · 1978 term · Burger Court
Decided Feb 22, 1979 · argued Jan 9, 1979
Judicial power · Judicial administration: Supreme Court's original jurisdiction
Majority opinion: Potter Stewart
The voteMajority
9–09 in the majority, 0 in dissent
No dissent (9–0)
Stay, petition, or motion granted. California won.
What this ruling means
Granted: the Supreme Court gave the party what it asked for, such as a stay or an order.
California was the petitioner, the side that asked the Supreme Court to review the case. “Won” means the Court gave that side the result it asked for.
From the Supreme Court Database. A justice who agreed with the result but not the reasoning counts in the majority.
Summary
The opening of the case’s Wikipedia article: what the case was about and what the Court held.
Arizona v. California is a set of United States Supreme Court cases, all dealing with disputes over water distribution from the Colorado River between the states of Arizona and California. It also covers the amount of water that the State of Nevada receives from the river.
When a dispute arises between two states, the case is filed for exclusive original jurisdiction with the United States Supreme Court. This is one of the very limited circumstances where the Court has original jurisdiction as a trial court and no lower may hear the case. In all other cases, the Court acts as the highest level appellate court in the United States.
The cases involved were all named Arizona v. California, and were decided in 1931, 1934, 1936, 1963, 1964, 1966, 1979, 1983, 1984, 2000, and 2006.
Data notes
The text is Wikipedia’s (CC BY-SA 4.0), matched to the case by its citation, docket number or name and year, and is not checked against the opinion. The site keeps the article’s opening section, ending on its last full sentence. The one-sentence summary under the title is the Decisions list’s: Wikipedia’s own ruling sentence, or, tagged “AI-written”, one Claude wrote from this opening.
How the justices voted
Each justice who took part, placed by their Martin–Quinn ideology score for the 1978 term. Filled: the 9 in the majority. Hollow: the 0 in dissent. Colour is the party of the president who appointed them.
Majority(9)
Potter StewartWrote the majority opinion
Thurgood MarshallJoined the majority
William BrennanJoined the majority
John StevensJoined the majority
Byron WhiteJoined the majority
Harry BlackmunJoined the majority
Lewis PowellJoined the majority
Warren BurgerJoined the majority
William RehnquistJoined the majority
Dissent(0)
- None.
Data notes
Each justice’s vote and what they wrote are from the justice-centered file of the Supreme Court Database. “Wrote a concurrence” means the justice sided with the majority and wrote separately; a justice who dissented in part is counted on the side they took overall. A justice who wrote nothing is listed as joining their side.
Positions are each justice’s Martin–Quinn score for the case’s term, the same scores as the Ideology page: negative is more liberal, positive more conservative. A score sums up a justice’s votes across the whole term, so it says where they usually sit, not why they voted as they did here. The median line is the Court’s median justice that term.
The parties
Who brought the case to the Court, who answered it, and how it got there.
- Petitioner
- CaliforniaState (California)
- Respondent
- Arizona et al.State (Arizona)
- Reached the Court by
- Original jurisdiction (filed directly in the Supreme Court)
Data notes
The names are the two sides of the case’s title. The description under each is the Supreme Court Database’s category for that party, in its own wording. The petitioner is the side that asked the Supreme Court to review the decision below. “Why it was taken” appears only when the majority opinion says lower courts disagreed or were unsure about the question; reasons that would fit any case (“to resolve the question presented”, “an important question”) are left out.
The law at issue
The law the Court was asked to apply, and the kind of power it used to decide.
- Provision
- 28 U.S.C. § 2409
- Kind of law
- Infrequently litigated statutes
- Decided by
- Statutory construction
Data notes
The Supreme Court Database codes the main constitutional provision, statute or court rule each case turned on, and the basis of the decision: judicial review of a federal or state law, interpreting a statute, supervising the lower courts, and so on. A case can rest on more than one. “Overruled” counts only where the majority opinion says so.
Timeline
What happened at the Court and how the case got there, newest first.
- Feb 22, 1979DecidedDecided · Decided 9–0: stay, petition, or motion granted. California won.
- Jan 9, 1979ArguedArgued · Oral argument before the Court.
- Not datedFiledFiled · Filed directly in the Supreme Court, under its original jurisdiction.
Data notes
From the Supreme Court Database: the court the case began in, the court whose decision the Supreme Court reviewed and what that court did, how the case came to the Court, and the dates of argument and decision. The database does not date the steps in the lower courts. Court names are the database’s.
Other decisions on the same issue
9 other argued cases since 1946 on judicial administration: Supreme Court's original jurisdiction, newest first.
- Mississippi, et al. v. Louisiana et al.506 U.S. 73Dec 14, 1992 · 506 U.S. 73Judicial power9–0Unanimous band
- South Carolina v. Regan, Secretary of the Treasury465 U.S. 367Feb 22, 1984 · 465 U.S. 367Judicial power9–0Unanimous band
- Texas v. New Mexico462 U.S. 554Jun 17, 1983 · 462 U.S. 554Judicial power9–0Unanimous band
- Pennsylvania v. New Jersey426 U.S. 660Jun 17, 1976 · 426 U.S. 660Judicial power5–27–2 band
- United States v. Nevada et al.412 U.S. 534Jun 11, 1973 · 412 U.S. 534Judicial power8–18–1 band
- Virginia v. Maryland355 U.S. 269Dec 16, 1957 · 355 U.S. 269Judicial power9–0Unanimous band
- United States v. Louisiana354 U.S. 515Jun 24, 1957 · 354 U.S. 515Judicial power7–0Unanimous band
- Arkansas v. Texas et al.346 U.S. 368Nov 16, 1953 · 346 U.S. 368Judicial power5–45–4 band
- Ex Parte Fahey, Federal Home Loan Bank Commissioner, et al.332 U.S. 258Jun 23, 1947 · 332 U.S. 258Judicial power9–0Unanimous band
Data notes
Every other orally argued case with a clear vote, from the 1946 term on, that the Supreme Court Database files under the same issue as this one. The database gives each case one issue from a list of about 270 (abortion, search and seizure of vehicles, the death penalty, and so on), whatever law it turned on.
Official record
Read the full opinion on Justia and Wikipedia. Case data from the Supreme Court Database, Version 2026 Release 01, through the 2025 term.