QUESTION PRESENTED:

This Court has held on numerous occasions that a State may not discriminate against interstate commerce in water absent an "expressly stated" or "unmistakably clear" congressional intent to immunize the relevant state laws from dormant Commerce Clause scrutiny. See Sporhase v. Neb. ex rel. Douglas, 458 U.S. 941 (1982); So.-Cent. Timber Dev., Inc. v. Wunnicke, 467 U.S. 82 (1984). The questions presented here, which are of vital importance to arid regions of the United States that depend on interstate imports of water and interstate compacts governing access to water, are as follows:

1. Whether Congress's approval of an interstate water compact that grants the contracting States "equal rights" to certain surface water and - using language present in almost all such compacts - provides that the compact shall not "be deemed * * * to interfere" with each State's "appropriation, use, and control of water * * * not inconsistent with its obligations under this Compact," manifests unmistakably clear congressional consent to state laws that expressly burden interstate commerce in water.
2. Whether a provision of a congressionally approved multi-state compact that is designed to ensure an equal share of water among the contracting states preempts protectionist state laws that obstruct other states from accessing the water to which they are entitled by the compact.

Merit Briefs

• Brief for Respondents Rudolf John Herrmann
• Brief for Petitioner, Tarrant Regional Water District
• Reply Brief for Petitioner, Tarrant Regional Water District

Amicus Briefs

• Brief for City of Dallas in Support of Petitioner
• Brief for the Cities of Arlington and Fort Worth, Texas, in Support of Petitioner
• Brief for City of Irving, Texas, City of Hugo, Oklahoma, and Hugo Municipal Authority in Support of Petitioner
• Brief for the Fort Worth Chamber of Commerce, the Dallas Regional Chamber, the Greater Fort Worth Real Estate Council, and the Dallas Citizens Council in Support of Petitioner
• Brief for North Texas Commission in Support of Petitioner
• Brief for North Texas Municipal Water District in Support of Petitioner
• Brief for Olen Paul Matthews And Michael Pease in Support of Petitioner
• Brief for Texas in Support of Petitioner
• Brief for the Texas Water Conservation Association in Support of Petitioner
• Brief for Upper Trinity Regional Water District in Support of Petitioner
• Brief for the Chickasaw and Choctaw Nations in Support of Respondents
• Brief for City of Oklahoma City and Oklahoma City Water Utilities Trust in Support of Respondents
• Brief for Louisiana and Arkansas in Support of Respondent
• Brief for Oklahoma Independent Petroleum Assocition in Support or Respondent
• Brief for Oklahomans for Responsible Water Policy in Support of Respondent
• Brief for Professors of Law and Political Science in Support of Respondent 
• Brief for Republican River Water Conservation District and the Rio Grande Water Conservation District in Support of Respondent
• Brief for the States of Colorado, Idaho, Indiana, Michigan, Nevada, New Mexico, Utah in Support of Respondents
• Brief for the United States in Support of Vacatur and Remand