discretion has long animated Article III scholars.
Indeed, it has long been the
basis of appeals to “law of the river” on interstate waters, law that is mystical and
But this has kept federal courts locked in an unstable tension between
the Constitution’s federalism and its separation of powers.
interests states claim equally according to the Court evoke timeless notions of
Since Massachusetts v. EPA,
however, an outpouring of work on
state standing under Article III has revealed deep fault lines.
State standing has
STATE RELATIONS IN THE MARITIME LAW OF THE UNITED STATES (1970); see generally Note, From
Judicial Grant to Legislative Power: The Admiralty Clause in the Nineteenth Century, 67 HARV. L. REV.
12. See generally Michael T. Morley, The Federal Equity Power, 59 B.C. L. REV. 217 (2018);
Kristin A. Collins, “A Considerable Surgical Operation”: Article III, Equity, and Judge-Made Law in
the Federal Courts, 60 DUKE L.J. 249 (2010); David Sloss, Constitutional Remedies for Statutory
Violations, 89 IOWA L. REV. 354 (2004); David Crump, The Twilight Zone of the Erie Doctrine: Is There
Really a Different Choice of Equitable Remedies in the “Court a Block Away”?, 1991 WIS. L. REV.
1233; David L. Shapiro, Jurisdiction and Discretion, 60 N.Y.U. L. REV. 543, 548–50 (1985); Robert F.
Nagle, Separation of Powers the Scope of Federal Equitable Remedies, 30 STAN. L. REV. 661 (1978);
Walter E. Dellinger, Of Rights and Remedies: The Constitution as a Sword, 85 HARV. L. REV. 1532,
1532–33 (1972) (discussing Bivens v. Six Unknown Agents, 403 U.S. 388
(1971)); Alfred L. Hill,
Constitutional Remedies, 69 COLUM. L. REV. 1109 (1969).
13. See DAVID OWEN, WHERE THE WATER GOES: LIFE AND DEATH ALONG THE COLORADO RIVER 24
(2017) (noting that invocations of the ‘Law of the River’ refer to a “complex but loosely defined and
minimally circumscribed body of rules, precedents, habits, treaties, customs and compacts that isn’t
written down all in one place,” but which is invoked “almost any time two water users disagree about
who’s entitled to what”).
14. See e.g., Morley, supra note 12, at 219–24; Collins, supra note 12, at 252–55; Hill, supra note 12.
15. See, e.g., Jack Goldsmith & Daryl Levinson, Law for States: International Law, Constitutional
Law, Public Law, 122 HARV. L. REV. 1791, 1868 (2009) (“[s]tates are not sources of ends in the same
sense as are persons. Instead, states are systems of shared practices and institutions within which
communities of persons establish and advance their ends.” (quoting CHARLES R. BEITZ, POLITICAL
THEORY AND INTERNATIONAL RELATIONS 180 (1979))); cf. New York v. United States, 505 U.S. 144,
181 (1992) (“State sovereignty is not just an end in itself: Rather, federalism secures to citizens the
liberties that derive from the diffusion of sovereign power.”).
16. 549 U.S. 497
, 518 (2007) (holding that states “are not normal litigants for purposes of invoking
federal jurisdiction” and relaxing at least two elements of standing doctrine for state plaintiffs).
17. See e.g., Seth Davis, The Private Rights of Public Governments, 94 NOTRE DAME L. REV. 2091
(2019) [hereinafter Davis, Private Rights]; Seth Davis, The New Public Standing, 71 STAN. L. REV.
1229 (2019) [hereinafter Davis, Public Standing]; F. Andrew Hessick, Quasi-Sovereign Standing, 94
NOTRE DAME L. REV. 1927 (2019); Margaret H. Lemos & Ernest A. Young, State Public-Law Litigation
in an Age of Polarization, 97 TEX. L. REV. 43 (2018); James Pfander, Standing, Litigable Interest, and
Article III’s Case-or-Controversy Requirement, 65 UCLA L. REV. 170 (2018); Tara Leigh Grove, When
Can a State Sue the United States?, 101 CORNELL L. REV. 851 (2016); Shannon M. Roesler, State
Standing to Challenge Federal Authority in the Modern Administrative State, 91 WASH. L. REV. 637
(2016); Richard H. Fallon, Jr., The Fragmentation of Standing, 93 TEX. L. REV. 1061, 1081–84 (2015);
Ann Woolhandler, Governmental Sovereignty Actions, 23 WM. & MARY BILL RTS. J. 209 (2014);
Katherine Mims Crocker, Note—Securing Sovereign State Standing, 97 VA. L. REV. 2051 (2011);
Bradford Mank, Should States Have Greater Standing Rights than Ordinary Citizens? Massachusetts v.
EPA’s New Standing Test for States, 49 WM. & MARY L. REV. 1701 (2008); Robert V. Percival,
Massachusetts v. EPA: Escaping the Common Law’s Growing Shadow, SUP. CT. REV. 111 (2008).
2021] INTERSTATE WATERS JURISPRUDENCE 235