Opinion of the Court
Notice: This opinion is subject to formal revision before publication in the preliminary print of the United States Reports. Readers are requested to notify the Reporter of Decisions, Supreme Court of the United States, Washington, D. C. 20543, of any typographical or other formal errors, in order that corrections may be made before the preliminary print goes to press.
SUPREME COURT OF THE UNITED STATES
Nos. 145, Orig. and 146, Orig.
DELAWARE, PLAINTIFF
145, Orig.v.145, Orig.
PENNSYLVANIA AND WISCONSIN
ARKANSAS, ET AL., PLAINTIFFS
146, Orig.v.146, Orig.
DELAWARE
ON EXCEPTIONS TO REPORTS OF SPECIAL MASTER
[February 28, 2023]
Justice Jackson delivered the opinion of the Court.[* 1]
“Escheatment” is the power of a State, as a sovereign, to take custody of property deemed abandoned. Texas v. New Jersey, 379 U. S. 674, 675 (1965). In the context of tangible property, the escheatment rule is straightforward: The State in which the abandoned property is located has the power to take custody of it. Id., at 677. But determining which State has the power to escheat intangible property, which has no physical location, can be complicated, as multiple States may have arguable claims. See ibid.
These original jurisdiction cases require us to decide which States have the power to escheat the proceeds of certain abandoned financial products that MoneyGram Pay-
- ↑ Justice Thomas, Justice Alito, Justice Gorsuch, and Justice Barrett join all but Part IV–B of this opinion.
