State of New Hampshire v. State of Maine
The Supreme Court of the United States held that the boundary between the states of New Hampshire and Maine was fixed by the 1740 decree of King George II of Great Britain.
532 U.S. 742 · No. 130 ORIG · 2000 term · Rehnquist Court
Decided May 29, 2001 · argued Apr 16, 2001
Interstate relations · Boundary dispute between states
Majority opinion: Ruth Ginsburg
The voteMajority
8–08 in the majority, 0 in dissent
No dissent (9–0)
Petition denied or appeal dismissed. State of New Hampshire lost.
What this ruling means
Dismissed: after hearing the case the Supreme Court declined to decide it, so the decision of the lower court stands.
State of New Hampshire was the petitioner, the side that asked the Supreme Court to review the case. “Lost” means the Court did not give 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.
New Hampshire v. Maine, 426 U.S. 363 (1977), was an original jurisdiction case in which the Supreme Court of the United States held that the boundary between the states of New Hampshire and Maine was fixed by the 1740 decree of King George II of Great Britain. Both sides entered into a consent decree which was accepted by the special master appointed by the Court.
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 2000 term. Filled: the 8 in the majority. Hollow: the 0 in dissent. Colour is the party of the president who appointed them.
Majority(8)
Ruth GinsburgWrote the majority opinion
John StevensJoined the majority
Stephen BreyerJoined the majority
Sandra O'ConnorJoined the majority
Anthony KennedyJoined the majority
William RehnquistJoined the majority
Antonin ScaliaJoined the majority
Clarence ThomasJoined the majority
Dissent(0)
- None.
Did not take part: David Souter.
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
- State of New HampshireState (New Hampshire)
- Respondent
- State of MaineState (Maine)
- 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
- Estoppel
- Kind of law
- Other
- Decided by
- Federal common law
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.
- May 29, 2001DecidedDecided · Decided 8–0: petition denied or appeal dismissed. State of New Hampshire lost.
- Apr 16, 2001ArguedArgued · 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
16 other argued cases since 1946 on boundary dispute between states, newest first.
- State of New Jersey v. State of Delaware552 U.S. 597Mar 31, 2008 · 552 U.S. 597Interstate relations5–36–3 band
- State of New Jersey v. State of New York523 U.S. 767May 26, 1998 · 523 U.S. 767Interstate relations6–36–3 band
- Louisiana v. Mississippi et al.516 U.S. 22Oct 31, 1995 · 516 U.S. 22Interstate relations9–0Unanimous band
- State of Illinois v. Commonwealth of Kentucky500 U.S. 380May 28, 1991 · 500 U.S. 380Interstate relations9–0Unanimous band
- Georgia v. South Carolina497 U.S. 376Jun 25, 1990 · 497 U.S. 376Interstate relations9–0Unanimous band
- Louisiana v. Mississippi et al.466 U.S. 96Apr 2, 1984 · 466 U.S. 96Interstate relations9–0Unanimous band
- California v. Nevada447 U.S. 125Jun 10, 1980 · 447 U.S. 125Interstate relations9–0Unanimous band
- Ohio v. Kentucky444 U.S. 335Jan 21, 1980 · 444 U.S. 335Interstate relations6–36–3 band
- Texas v. Louisiana426 U.S. 465Jun 14, 1976 · 426 U.S. 465Interstate relations9–0Unanimous band
- New Hampshire v. Maine426 U.S. 363Jun 14, 1976 · 426 U.S. 363Interstate relations6–36–3 band
- Mississippi v. Arkansas415 U.S. 289Feb 26, 1974 · 415 U.S. 289Interstate relations8–18–1 band
- Texas v. Louisiana410 U.S. 702Mar 20, 1973 · 410 U.S. 702Interstate relations8–18–1 band
- Ohio v. Kentucky410 U.S. 641Mar 5, 1973 · 410 U.S. 641Interstate relations8–18–1 band
- Nebraska v. Iowa406 U.S. 117Apr 24, 1972 · 406 U.S. 117Interstate relations9–0Unanimous band
- Arkansas v. Tennessee397 U.S. 88Jan 25, 1970 · 397 U.S. 88Interstate relations8–0Unanimous band
- Durfee et ux. v. Duke375 U.S. 106Dec 2, 1963 · 375 U.S. 106Interstate relations9–0Unanimous 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.