October Term 2020
No. 142-orig

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 Court

What 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.

9–0 for Georgia
with the majority concurring in dissent recused filed an opinion
How the vote aligned with ideology

Unanimous.

Liberal Conservative
voted with the majority dissented

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

Justice Barrett, for the Court

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

Also argued
  • Gregory G. Garre for the Plaintiff
  • Craig S. Primis for the Defendant

Case path

  1. Oct 4, 2013 granted
  2. Feb 22, 2021 argued
  3. Apr 1, 2021 decided