Texas v. New Mexico
E479822
Texas v. New Mexico is a U.S. Supreme Court interstate water rights case involving disputes over allocation and enforcement of river water compacts between the states.
All labels observed (1)
| Label | Occurrences |
|---|---|
| Texas v. New Mexico canonical | 1 |
How this entity was disambiguated
This entity first appeared as the object of triple T4892189 — resolving that mention is where its identity was fixed. The disambiguator weighed these candidate entities and picked the highlighted one (or “None”, minting a new entity). This is how homonymy is resolved: the same surface form can point to different entities.
NED1
Entity disambiguation (via context triple)
gpt-5-mini-2025-08-07
Target entity: Texas v. New Mexico Context triple: [Compact Clause of the United States Constitution, appliedInCase, Texas v. New Mexico]
-
A.
California v. Texas
California v. Texas is a U.S. Supreme Court case that challenged the constitutionality of the Affordable Care Act after Congress reduced the individual mandate penalty to zero.
-
B.
Alabama v. Texas
Alabama v. Texas is a 1954 U.S. Supreme Court case in which the Court addressed a dispute among states over offshore submerged lands and the scope of federal authority under the Constitution.
-
C.
Arizona v. United States
Arizona v. United States is a 2012 U.S. Supreme Court case that limited state authority over immigration enforcement by affirming broad federal power in this area.
-
D.
Kleppe v. New Mexico
Kleppe v. New Mexico is a 1976 U.S. Supreme Court case that affirmed broad federal authority over public lands and wildlife under the Constitution’s Property Clause.
-
E.
Texas v. White
Texas v. White was an 1869 U.S. Supreme Court case that held the Union to be indestructible and that states could not unilaterally secede from it.
- F. None of above. chosen
- G. Unsure - the case is ambiguous/there is not enough information to decide.
NED2
Entity disambiguation (via description)
gpt-5-mini-2025-08-07
Target entity: Texas v. New Mexico Target entity description: Texas v. New Mexico is a U.S. Supreme Court interstate water rights case involving disputes over allocation and enforcement of river water compacts between the states.
-
A.
California v. Texas
California v. Texas is a U.S. Supreme Court case that challenged the constitutionality of the Affordable Care Act after Congress reduced the individual mandate penalty to zero.
-
B.
Alabama v. Texas
Alabama v. Texas is a 1954 U.S. Supreme Court case in which the Court addressed a dispute among states over offshore submerged lands and the scope of federal authority under the Constitution.
-
C.
Arizona v. United States
Arizona v. United States is a 2012 U.S. Supreme Court case that limited state authority over immigration enforcement by affirming broad federal power in this area.
-
D.
Kleppe v. New Mexico
Kleppe v. New Mexico is a 1976 U.S. Supreme Court case that affirmed broad federal authority over public lands and wildlife under the Constitution’s Property Clause.
-
E.
Texas v. White
Texas v. White was an 1869 U.S. Supreme Court case that held the Union to be indestructible and that states could not unilaterally secede from it.
- F. None of above. chosen
Statements (49)
| Predicate | Object |
|---|---|
| instanceOf |
United States Supreme Court case
ⓘ
interstate water rights case ⓘ original jurisdiction case ⓘ |
| affects |
irrigation in the Rio Grande Project area
ⓘ
water deliveries to southern New Mexico ⓘ water deliveries to west Texas ⓘ |
| alleges |
New Mexico actions impaired water deliveries to Texas under the Rio Grande Project
ⓘ
New Mexico allowed groundwater pumping that interfered with Rio Grande Compact deliveries NERFINISHED ⓘ |
| category |
Interstate compact litigation
ⓘ
United States Supreme Court cases involving water rights ⓘ United States Supreme Court original jurisdiction cases ⓘ |
| citation | Texas v. New Mexico, 138 S. Ct. 954 (2018) NERFINISHED ⓘ |
| constitutionalBasis |
Article III original jurisdiction
ⓘ
Compact Clause, Article I, Section 10 NERFINISHED ⓘ |
| courtTerm | 2013 Term ⓘ |
| decisionType | opinion of the Court ⓘ |
| docketNumber | No. 141, Original ⓘ |
| filedAgainst | State of New Mexico NERFINISHED ⓘ |
| filedBy |
State of Texas
NERFINISHED
ⓘ
United States (as intervenor) NERFINISHED ⓘ |
| geographicScope | Rio Grande Basin NERFINISHED ⓘ |
| holding |
United States has distinct federal interests in Rio Grande Project operations
NERFINISHED
ⓘ
United States may pursue claims to enforce the Rio Grande Compact NERFINISHED ⓘ |
| involves |
Elephant Butte Reservoir
NERFINISHED
ⓘ
Rio Grande Compact NERFINISHED ⓘ Rio Grande Project NERFINISHED ⓘ equitable apportionment principles ⓘ federal–state water management ⓘ interstate compact enforcement ⓘ |
| jurisdiction | Supreme Court of the United States NERFINISHED ⓘ |
| legalIssue |
availability of equitable apportionment when a compact exists
ⓘ
remedies for compact violations ⓘ scope of federal government’s role in enforcing interstate compacts ⓘ whether New Mexico violated the Rio Grande Compact ⓘ |
| legalSubject |
Compact Clause of the U.S. Constitution
NERFINISHED
ⓘ
federal reclamation law ⓘ interstate water allocation ⓘ river water compacts ⓘ |
| opinionBy | Justice Neil Gorsuch NERFINISHED ⓘ |
| party |
State of Colorado
NERFINISHED
ⓘ
State of New Mexico NERFINISHED ⓘ State of Texas NERFINISHED ⓘ |
| proceduralPosture |
original action for leave to file bill of complaint
ⓘ
referred to Special Master ⓘ |
| relatedCase |
Colorado v. New Mexico, 459 U.S. 176 (1982)
NERFINISHED
ⓘ
Texas v. New Mexico, 462 U.S. 554 (1983) NERFINISHED ⓘ |
| specialMaster | Gregory J. Grimsal NERFINISHED ⓘ |
| timePeriod | 21st century ⓘ |
| vote | unanimous in relevant 2018 decision ⓘ |
How these facts were elicited
The pipeline generated the facts above by prompting gpt-5.1 with this entity's name + description and the instruction below.
Instruction
You are a knowledge base construction expert. Given a subject entity and a description of it, return factual statements that you know for the subject as a JSON list of dictionaries(triples), where keys must be "subject", "predicate" and "object". The number of facts may be very high, between 25 to 50 or more, for very popular subjects. For less popular subjects, the number of facts can be very low, like 5 or 10. # Requirements - If you don't know the subject at all, return an empty list. - If the subject is not a named entity, return an empty list. - Include at least one triple where predicate is "instanceOf". - Do not get too wordy. - Separate several objects into multiple triples with one object.
Input
Subject: Texas v. New Mexico Description of subject: Texas v. New Mexico is a U.S. Supreme Court interstate water rights case involving disputes over allocation and enforcement of river water compacts between the states.
Referenced by (1)
Full triples — surface form annotated when it differs from this entity's canonical label.