The Oyez Project Virtual Tour of the Supreme Court Building

Abstract

Argument: Monday, January 12, 1998
Decision: Tuesday, May 26, 1998
Issues: Interstate Relations, Boundary Dispute Between States

Advocates

Jeffrey P. Minear (Argued the cause for the United States, amicus curiae)
Daniel Smirlock (Argued the cause for the defendant)
Joseph L. Yannotti (Argued the cause for the plaintiff)

Facts of the Case

Under an 1834 compact between New York and New Jersey, Ellis Island was deemed part of New York. It was later determined, by the Supreme Court, that New Jersey would have sovereign rights over all submerged lands on its side of the Hudson River. During the time Ellis Island was used to receive immigrants, the Federal Government filled around the island adding some 24.5 acres to its original size over 42 years. When immigration was diverted from Ellis Island in 1954, New York and New Jersey asserted rival sovereignty claims over the Island's filled portions. New Jersey finally invoked the Supreme Court's original jurisdiction to solve the matter once and for all time.

Question

Are the filled portions on Jersey's Side of Ellis Island under the sovereign authority of the State of New York or the State of New Jersey?

Conclusion

The Court held that the 1834 compact between the two states, although granting New York sovereignty over Ellis Island, did not support an inference that any portions added to the island's New Jersey side would also belong to New York. The lack of meets and bounds descriptions in the compact indicated that it merely applied to Ellis Island as it existed in 1834, and did not contemplate ownership of expanded portions. Moreover, the Court noted that under the common law doctrine of avulsion, sudden shoreline changes have no effect on boundaries. Thus, since New Jersey had sovereignty over previously submerged portions of Ellis Island, it would retain such sovereignty when these portions were filled until raised above the water line on its side of the Island.

Supreme Court Justice Opinions and Votes (by Ideology)

Sort by Seniority
(More information here)
Decision: 6 votes for New Jersey, 3 vote(s) against
Wrote a dissent
Stevens
Voted with the majority, joined Breyer's concurrence
Ginsburg
Wrote a regular concurrence
Breyer
Wrote the majority opinion
Souter
Voted with the majority
Kennedy
Voted with the majority
O'Connor
Voted with the majority
Rehnquist
Wrote a dissent
Scalia
Voted with the minority, joined Scalia's dissent
Thomas
Full Opinion by Justice David H. Souter

Cite this page

The Oyez Project, New Jersey v. New York, 523 U.S. 767 (1998),
available at: <http://www.oyez.org/cases/1990-1999/1997/1997_120_orig/>
(last visited ).