Texas v. New Mexico and Colorado

Because the proposed consent decree would dispose of the United States’ Compact claims without its consent, the States’ motion to enter the consent decree is denied. Justice Ketanji Brown Jackson authored the 5-4 majority opinion of the Court. Consent decrees have a dual nature; they embody agreements between parties (contractual) and are enforceable as judicial decrees. While intervenors can present evidence and objections, they cannot block a consent decree merely by withholding consent unless the settlement affects their claims. Additionally, a consent decree cannot dispose of the claims of nonconsenting intervenors without their agreement. Here, the Court needed to determine whether the United States has valid Compact claims and if the proposed consent decree would dispose of those claims. Its interests in the Rio Grande Project and compliance with treaty obligations constitute distinctively federal interests, justifying its intervention. However, the proposed consent decree would resolve the United States’ claims without addressing its allegations, making it inappropriate for approval without the United States' consent. Justice Neil Gorsuch authored a dissenting opinion, in which Justices Clarence Thomas, Samuel Alito, and Amy Coney Barrett joined. Justice Gorsuch argued that the federal government seeks to prolong this original jurisdiction dispute, a form of litigation usually reserved for disputes between States, over the objection of both Texas and New Mexico.