Page:Alabama v. North Carolina, 560 U.S. (2010) slip opinion.pdf/10

6

fall within our exclusive original jurisdiction over “contro­versies between two or more States.” §1251(a). We denied the Commission’s motion. 533 U. S. 926 (2001).

In June 2002, the States of Alabama, Florida, Tennes­see, and Virginia, joined by the Commission (collectively Plaintiffs), moved for leave to file a bill of complaint against North Carolina. North Carolina opposed the motion, and we again sought the views of the Solicitor General. 537 U. S. 806 (2002). The United States urged that we grant Plaintiffs’ motion, which we did. 539 U. S. 925 (2003). The bill of complaint contains five counts: violation of the party States’ rights under the Compact (Count I); breach of contract (Count II); unjust enrichment (Count III), promissory estoppel (Count IV); and money had and received (Count V). Plaintiffs’ prayer for relief requests a declaration that North Carolina is subject to sanctions and that the Commission’s sanctions resolution is valid and enforceable, as well as the award of damages, costs, and other relief.

We assigned the case to a Special Master, 540 U. S. 1014 (2003), who has conducted proceedings and now has filed two reports. The Master’s Preliminary Report ad­dressed three motions filed by the parties. He recom­mended denying without prejudice North Carolina’s mo­tion to dismiss the Commission’s claims against North Carolina on the grounds of sovereign immunity. Prelimi­nary Report 4–14. He recommended denying Plaintiffs’ motion for summary judgment on Count I, which sought enforcement of the Commission’s sanctions resolution. Id., at 14–33. He recommended granting North Carolina’s cross-motion to dismiss Count I and other portions of the bill of complaint that sought enforcement of the sanctions resolution. Id., at 33–34. And he recommended denying North Carolina’s motion to dismiss the claims in Counts II–V. Id., at 34–43.

After the Special Master issued his Preliminary Report,