New York v. New Jersey (2023)
| New York v. New Jersey | |
|---|---|
 | |
| Argued March 1, 2023 Decided April 18, 2023 | |
| Full case name | New York v. New Jersey |
| Docket no. | 22O156 |
| Citations | 598 U.S. 1 (more) |
| Argument | Oral argument |
| Opinion announcement | Opinion announcement |
| Holding | |
| New Jersey has the unilateral right to withdraw from the Waterfront Commission of New York Harbor. | |
| Court membership | |
| |
| Case opinion | |
| Majority | Kavanaugh, joined by unanimous |
New York v New Jersey, 598 U. S.____(2023), is a United States Supreme Court case in which the Court held that New Jersey had the unilateral right to withdraw from the Waterfront Commission of New York Harbor.
Background[edit]
In 1953, New York and New Jersey entered a compact establishing the Waterfront Commission of New York Harbor, a bistate commission for regulating and enforcing the law in the Port of New York and New Jersey shared by the states. For approximately 60 years, the states collaborated through the commission to combat lawlessness and disinfect the port of charlatans and malign opportunists. However, by the 2010s, New Jersey lost interest in continued participation in the commission, as it became irrelevant and costly in their view. In 2018, the New Jersey Legislature passed, and Governor of New Jersey Chris Christie subsequently signed, legislation authorizing the state's withdrawal from the commission.[1] New York moved to enjoin the withdrawal, arguing that New Jersey could not unilaterally withdraw from the compact. The Supreme Court temporarily enjoined the withdrawal, and exercised its original jurisdiction to adjudicate the case.[2][3]
Supreme Court[edit]
In a unanimous decision, Justice Kavanaugh delivered the opinion of the Court, holding that New Jersey had the unilateral right to withdraw from the compact.[4][5] Two important principles underlay the Court's decision: (1) Interstate compacts are viewed as contracts, and are interpreted using the procedures thereof. (2) Waiver of sovereign immunity should not be treated lightly, and any expansion of such waiver must be undertaken diligently and meticulously.
The first principle establishes the framework for interpreting the compact. Absent express instructions, contracts may be terminated by any party at any time the party sees fit. And thus, given the compact's silence regarding unilateral withdrawal, and given the general background of construing compacts - it's unmistakable that states may unilaterally withdraw from the compact. State sovereignty principles, which look askance at any diminishment of state self-governance, only appreciate this conclusion.[6] However, the Court caveated that some compacts are not subject to the same analysis. To wit, compacts conveying property interests, compacts not indefinite in their validity, or compacts with express instructions as to withdrawal. As the Court explained, the circumstances of such compacts suggest or directly express the intent of the party, and thus, in those cases, the parties’ intent should control.[7]
References[edit]
- ^ Hutchins, Ryan. "Christie, reversing himself, signs bill to abolish Waterfront Commission". Politico. Retrieved January 15, 2023.
- ^ "U.S. Supreme Court blocks New Jersey's exit from Waterfront Commission".
- ^ Howe, Amy. "Justices grant review in cases on Bank Secrecy Act and False Claims Act". ScotusBlog. Retrieved June 21, 2022.
- ^ Gresko, Jessica. "New Jersey wins Supreme Court dispute against New York". AP News. The Associated Press. Retrieved April 18, 2023.
- ^ New York v New Jersey, 598 U.S. 1 (2023)
- ^ Paul, Brian J. "Supreme Court Decides New York v. New Jersey". faegredrinker. Retrieved April 20, 2023.
- ^ New York v New Jersey, 598 U.S. 7 (2023)
External links[edit]
- Text of New York v New Jersey, 598 U.S. 1 (2023) is available from: Justia Oyez (oral argument audio) Supreme Court (slip opinion)