# New York v. New Jersey (2023)

Note: Where it is feasible, a syllabus (headnote) will be released, as is being done in connection with this case, at the time the opinion is issued. The syllabus constitutes no part of the opinion of the Court but has been prepared by the Reporter of Decisions for the convenience of the reader. See United States v. Detroit Timber & Lumber Co., 200 U. S. 321, 337.
SUPREME COURT OF THE UNITED STATES
Syllabus
NEW YORK v. NEW JERSEY ON CROSS-MOTIONS FOR JUDGMENT ON THE PLEADINGS No. 156, Orig. Argued March 1, 2023—Decided April 18, 2023
In 1953, New York and New Jersey exercised their authority under Article I, §10, of the Constitution to enter into a compact to address corruption at the Port of New York and New Jersey. The Waterfront Commission Compact established a bistate agency known as the Waterfront Commission of New York Harbor, to which the States delegated their sovereign authority to conduct regulatory and law-enforcement activities at the Port. The Compact does not address each State’s power to withdraw from the Compact.
In 2018, New Jersey sought to unilaterally withdraw from the Compact, over New York’s opposition. New York filed a bill of complaint in this Court, and the parties then filed cross-motions for judgment on the pleadings, with the United States supporting New Jersey as amicus curiae.
Held: New Jersey may unilaterally withdraw from the Waterfront Commission Compact notwithstanding New York’s opposition. Pp. 3–9.
(a) The interpretation of an interstate compact approved by Congress presents a federal question, see Cuyler v. Adams, 449 U. S. 433, 438, the resolution of which begins with an examination of “the express terms of the Compact,” Tarrant Regional Water Dist. v. Herrmann, 569 U. S. 614, 628. Unlike certain other compacts, the Compact here does not address withdrawal.
Principles of state sovereignty also support New Jersey’s position. “The background notion that a State does not easily cede its sovereignty has informed” this Court’s “interpretation of interstate compacts.” Tarrant, 569 U. S., at 631. The nature of the delegation at issue here—delegation of a State’s sovereign power to protect the people, property, and economic activity within its borders—buttresses the conclusion that New Jersey can unilaterally withdraw.
To be clear, the contract-law rule that governs the Compact here does not apply to other kinds of compacts that do not exclusively call for ongoing performance on an indefinite basis—such as compacts setting boundaries, apportioning water rights, or otherwise conveying property interests. Pp. 3–7.
(b) New York’s additional arguments in support of its view that the Compact should be read to prohibit unilateral withdrawal are unpersuasive. First, New York argues that the Court should interpret the 1953 Compact in light of pre-1953 compacts that were silent on unilateral withdrawal but were understood to forbid it. But many of those compacts concerned boundaries and water-rights allocation—the very kinds of compacts that are not governed by the default contract-law rule authorizing unilateral withdrawal. Second, New York invokes international treaty law, which New York says generally prohibits a signatory nation’s unilateral withdrawal from a treaty absent express language otherwise. But international treaty practice, to the extent it is relevant here, is equivocal. Third, New York points to the past practice of the States’ resolving Commission-related disputes. But that practice says little about whether either State could unilaterally withdraw. Fourth, New York maintains that the Court’s decision will have sweeping consequences for interstate compacts generally. But the Court’s decision does not address all compacts, and States may propose language to compacts expressly allowing or prohibiting unilateral withdrawal. Pp. 7–9.
New Jersey’s motion for judgment on the pleadings granted; New York’s cross-motion for judgment on the pleadings denied.
| | The current edition of this document derives from the electronic version of the "slip opinion" posted online by the Supreme Court of the United States the day the decision was handed down. It is not the final or most authoritative version. It is subject to further revision by the Court and should be replaced with the final edition when it is published in a print volume of the United States Reports. The Court's full disclaimer regarding slip opinions follows: |
| The "slip" opinion is the second version of an opinion. It is sent to the printer later in the day on which the "bench" opinion is released by the Court. Each slip opinion has the same elements as the bench opinion—majority or plurality opinion, concurrences or dissents, and a prefatory syllabus—but may contain corrections not appearing in the bench opinion. Caution: These electronic opinions may contain computer-generated errors or other deviations from the official printed slip opinion pamphlets. Moreover, a slip opinion is replaced within a few months by a paginated version of the case in the preliminary print, and—one year after the issuance of that print—by the final version of the case in a U. S. Reports bound volume. In case of discrepancies between the print and electronic versions of a slip opinion, the print version controls. In case of discrepancies between the slip opinion and any later official version of the opinion, the later version controls. (source: http://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/slipopinions.aspx) ||
This work is in the public domain in the United States because it is a work of the United States federal government (see 17 U.S.C. 105).
Public domainPublic domainfalsefalse