InsideGov
Supreme Court · Decisions

Texas v. New Mexico and Colorado

The Court considered the question of whether the U.S. federal government had a legal right to join litigation against New Mexico; the Court ruled that the federal government was within its rights when it did so.

138 S. Ct. 954 · No. 22O141 · 2017 term · Roberts Court

Decided Mar 5, 2018 · argued Jan 8, 2018

Interstate relations · Miscellaneous interstate relations conflict

Majority opinion: Neil Gorsuch

The voteMajority

9–09 in the majority, 0 in dissent

No dissent (9–0)

What this ruling means

From the Supreme Court Database. A justice who agreed with the result but not the reasoning counts in the majority.

Report a correction

Summary

The opening of the case’s Wikipedia article: what the case was about and what the Court held.

Texas v. New Mexico and Colorado, 583 U.S. ___ (2018), was a Supreme Court case argued and decided during the 2017 term of the Supreme Court of the United States. The case involved an interstate dispute regarding New Mexico's compliance with the Rio Grande Compact of 1938, an agreement which established a plan for equitable apportionment of the water in the Rio Grande Basin among the states of Colorado, New Mexico, and Texas. The Court considered the question of whether the U.S. federal government had a legal right to join litigation against New Mexico; the Court ruled that the federal government was within its rights when it did so.

Read the full article on Wikipedia

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.

Report a correction

How the justices voted

Each justice who took part, placed by their Martin–Quinn ideology score for the 2017 term. Filled: the 9 in the majority. Hollow: the 0 in dissent. Colour is the party of the president who appointed them.

More liberalMore conservativeMedianSotomayorGinsburgBreyerKaganKennedyJ. RobertsGorsuchAlitoThomas

Majority(9)

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.

Report a correction

The parties

Who brought the case to the Court, who answered it, and how it got there.

Petitioner
TexasState (Texas)
Respondent
New Mexico and ColoradoState (New Mexico)
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.

Report a correction

The law at issue

The law the Court was asked to apply, and the kind of power it used to decide.

Provision
Article I, Section 10, Paragraph 3 (compact clause)
Kind of law
Constitution
Decided by
Supreme Court supervision of lower federal or state courts or original jurisdiction
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.

Report a correction

Timeline

What happened at the Court and how the case got there, newest first.

  1. Mar 5, 2018DecidedDecided · Decided 9–0.
  2. Jan 8, 2018ArguedArgued · Oral argument before the Court.
  3. 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.

Report a correction

Other decisions on the same issue

21 other argued cases since 1946 on miscellaneous interstate relations conflict, newest first.

  1. Texas v. New Mexico and Colorado144 S. Ct. 1756Jun 21, 2024 · 144 S. Ct. 1756Interstate relations5–45–4 band

  2. New York v. New Jersey598 U.S. 218Apr 18, 2023 · 598 U.S. 218Interstate relations9–0Unanimous band

  3. Mississippi v. Tennessee142 S. Ct. 31Nov 21, 2021 · 142 S. Ct. 31Interstate relations9–0Unanimous band

  4. Kansas v. Nebraska and Colorado574 U.S. 445Feb 24, 2015 · 574 U.S. 445Interstate relations6–36–3 band

  5. Franchise Tax Board of California v. Gilbert P. Hyatt, et al.538 U.S. 488Apr 23, 2003 · 538 U.S. 488Interstate relations9–0Unanimous band
  6. Kenneth Lee Baker and Steven Robert Baker, by His Next Friend, Melissa Thomas v. General Motors Corporation522 U.S. 222Jan 13, 1998 · 522 U.S. 222Interstate relations9–0Unanimous band
  7. Simons v. Miami Beach First National Bank, Executor381 U.S. 81May 3, 1965 · 381 U.S. 81Interstate relations7–27–2 band
  8. Aldrich v. Aldrich et al.378 U.S. 540Jun 22, 1964 · 378 U.S. 540Interstate relations9–0Unanimous band
  9. Armstrong v. Armstrong et al.350 U.S. 568Apr 9, 1956 · 350 U.S. 568Interstate relations9–0Unanimous band
  10. Sutton v. Leib342 U.S. 402Mar 3, 1952 · 342 U.S. 402Interstate relations8–18–1 band
  11. Cook v. Cook342 U.S. 126Dec 3, 1951 · 342 U.S. 126Interstate relations8–18–1 band
  12. West Virginia ex rel. Dyer et al. v. Sims, State Auditor341 U.S. 22Apr 9, 1951 · 341 U.S. 22Interstate relations9–0Unanimous band
  13. Johnson v. Muelberger340 U.S. 581Mar 12, 1951 · 340 U.S. 581Interstate relations7–18–1 band

  14. Union National Bank v. Lamb337 U.S. 38May 16, 1949 · 337 U.S. 38Interstate relations6–36–3 band
  15. Rice v. Rice336 U.S. 674Apr 18, 1949 · 336 U.S. 674Interstate relations5–45–4 band
  16. Kreiger v. Kreiger334 U.S. 555Jun 7, 1948 · 334 U.S. 555Interstate relations7–27–2 band
  17. Estin v. Estin334 U.S. 541Jun 7, 1948 · 334 U.S. 541Interstate relations7–27–2 band

  18. Order of United Commercial Travelers of America v. Wolfe331 U.S. 586Jun 9, 1947 · 331 U.S. 586Interstate relations5–45–4 band
  19. Industrial Commission of Wisconsin et al. v. McCARTIN et al.330 U.S. 622Mar 31, 1947 · 330 U.S. 622Interstate relations9–0Unanimous band
  20. New York ex rel. Halvey v. Halvey330 U.S. 610Mar 31, 1947 · 330 U.S. 610Interstate relations9–0Unanimous band
  21. Morris v. Jones, Director of Insurance329 U.S. 545Jan 20, 1947 · 329 U.S. 545Interstate relations6–36–3 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.

Report a correction

Official record

Read the argument audio on Oyez and Wikipedia. Case data from the Supreme Court Database, Version 2026 Release 01, through the 2025 term.