Florida v. Georgia
Petitioner Florida · Respondent Georgia
- How it got here
- original jurisdiction
Is 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?
Question before the CourtWhat happened
This is an ongoing case of original jurisdiction, the facts of which are explained here. In sum, the case involves a water-rights dispute between Georgia and Florida over the waters of the Apalachicola-Chattahoochee-Flint River Basin.
Unanimous.
All nine justices agreed on the outcome. Concurrences may differ on reasoning, but the Court spoke with one voice on the judgment.
The opinions 1
Amy Coney Barrett
Joined by Roberts, Thomas, Breyer, Alito, Sotomayor, Kagan, Gorsuch, and Kavanaugh.
The holding
Florida failed to establish that Georgia’s overconsumption of interstate waters was either a substantial factor contributing to, or the sole cause of, Florida’s injuries. Justice Amy Coney Barrett authored the opinion on behalf of the unanimous Court. To succeed on its claim, Florida must show by the heightened “clear and convincing evidence” that the harm it suffered—collapse of its oyster fisheries—was caused by Georgia’s overconsumption. The record evidence establishes at most that increased salinity and predation contributed to the collapse of Florida’s fisheries, not that Georgia’s overconsumption caused the increased salinity and predation. Thus, Florida failed to meet its burden of persuasion, so its exceptions to the findings of the Special Master’s report are overruled, and the case is dismissed.
Argued by
- Gregory G. Garre for the Plaintiff
- Craig S. Primis for the Defendant
Case path
- Oct 4, 2013 granted
- Feb 22, 2021 argued
- Apr 1, 2021 decided
