Opinion ID: $opinion_id
Heading Depth: 1.0
Heading Rank: 2

Heading: $label

Text: Plaintiffs present a total of seven exceptions to the
Special Master’s two reports. We address them in turn.

Their first exception challenges the Special Master’s conclusion that the Commission lacked authority to im­ pose monetary sanctions upon North Carolina. The terms of the Compact determine that question.

Article 4(E) of the Compact sets forth the Commission’s “duties and powers.” Among its powers are the authority “[t]o revoke the membership of a party [S]tate that will­ fully creates barriers to the siting of a needed regional facility,” Art. 4(E)(7), 99 Stat. 1875, and the authority “[t]o revoke the membership of a party [S]tate in accordance with Article 7(f),” Art. 4(E)(11), ibid. Conspicuously ab­ sent from Article 4, however, is any mention of the author­ ity to impose monetary sanctions. Plaintiffs contend that authority may be found elsewhere—in the first paragraph of Article 7(F), which provides in relevant part:

“Any party [S]tate which fails to comply with the provisions of this compact or to fulfill the obligations incurred by becoming a party [S]tate to this compact may be subject to sanctions by the Commission, in­ cluding suspension of its rights under this compact and revocation of its status as a party [S]tate.” Id., at 1879. The sanctions expressly identified in Article 7(F)— “suspension” of rights and “revocation” of party-state status—flow directly from the Commission’s power in Articles 4(E)(7) and (11) to revoke a party State’s member­ ship. That can fairly be understood to include the lesser power to suspend a party State’s rights. There is no simi­ lar grounding in Article 4(E) of authority to impose mone­ tary sanctions, and the absence is significant.

According to Plaintiffs, however, the word “sanctions” in Article 7(F) naturally “includ[es]” monetary sanctions. Since the Compact contains no definition of “sanctions,” we give the word its ordinary meaning. A “sanction” (in the sense the word is used here) is “[t]he detriment loss of reward, or other coercive intervention, annexed to a viola­ tion of a law as a means of enforcing the law.” Webster’s New International Dictionary 2211 (2d ed. 1957) (herein­ after Webster’s Second); see Black’s Law Dictionary 1458 (9th ed. 2009) (“A penalty or coercive measure that results from failure to comply with a law, rule, or order”). A monetary penalty is assuredly one kind of “sanction.” See generally Department of Energy v. Ohio, 503 U. S. 607, 621 (1992). But there are many others, ranging from the withholding of benefits, or the imposition of a nonmone­ tary obligation, to capital punishment. The Compact surely does not authorize the Commission to impose all of them.

Ultimately, context dictates precisely which “sanctions” are authorized under Article 7(F), and nothing in the Compact suggests that these include monetary measures. The only two “sanctions” specifically identified as being included within Article 7(F) are “suspension” of a State’s rights under the Compact and “revocation” of its status as a party State. These are arguably merely examples, and may not exhaust the universe of sanctions the Commission can impose. But they do establish “illustrative applica­ tion[s] of the general principle,” Federal Land Bank of St. Paul v. Bismarck Lumber Co., 314 U. S. 95, 100 (1941), which underlies the kinds of sanctions the Commission can impose. It is significant that both these specifically authorized sanctions are prospective and nonmonetary in nature.

Moreover, Article 3 of the Compact provides: “The rights granted to the party [S]tates by this compact are addi­ tional to the rights enjoyed by sovereign states, and noth­ ing in this compact shall be construed to infringe upon, limit, or abridge those rights.” 99 Stat. 1873. Construing Article 7(F) to authorize monetary sanctions would violate this provision, since the primeval sovereign right is im­ munity from levies against the government fisc. See, e.g., Alden v. Maine, 527 U. S. 706, 750–751 (1999).

Finally, a comparison of the Compact’s terms with those of “[o]ther interstate compacts, approved by Congress contemporaneously,” Texas v. New Mexico, 462 U. S. 554, 565 (1983), confirms that Article 7(F) does not authorize monetary sanctions. At the same time Congress consented to this Compact, it consented to three other interstate compacts that expressly authorize their commissions to impose monetary sanctions against the parties to the compacts. See Northeast Interstate Low-Level Radioac­ tive Waste Management Compact, Art. IV(i)(14), 99 Stat. 1915 (hereinafter Northeast Compact); Central Midwest Interstate Low-Level Radioactive Waste Compact, Art. VIII(f), 99 Stat. 1891 (hereinafter Central Midwest Com­ pact); Central Interstate Low-Level Radioactive Waste Compact, Art. VII(e), 99 Stat. 1870 (hereinafter Central Compact). The Compact “clearly lacks the features of these other compacts, and we are not free to rewrite it” to empower the Commission to impose monetary sanctions. Texas v. New Mexico, 462 U. S., at 565.

Because the Compact does not authorize the Commis­ sion to impose monetary sanctions, Plaintiffs’ second exception—that North Carolina could not avoid monetary sanctions by withdrawing from the Compact—is moot. The third exception also pertains to the Commission’s sanctions resolution: that North Carolina forfeited its right to object to a monetary penalty by failing to partici­ pate at the sanctions hearing. Plaintiffs have failed to argue this exception. They have merely noted that North Carolina refused to participate at the sanctions hearing, and have cited no law in support of the proposition that this was a forfeit. We deem the exception abandoned. It was wisely abandoned, because it is meritless. North Carolina opposed the sanctions resolution and denied that the Commission had jurisdiction to impose sanctions against it.

Plaintiffs next take exception to the Special Master’s recommendation that no binding effect or even deference be accorded to the Commission’s conclusion that North Carolina violated Article 5(C) of the Compact. We are bound by the Commission’s conclusion of breach only if there is “an explicit provision or other clear indicatio[n]” in the Compact making the Commission the “sole arbiter of disputes” regarding a party State’s compliance with the Compact. Id., at 569–570. Plaintiffs assert there is such a provision, the second sentence of Article 7(C), which states: “The Commission is the judge of the qualifications of the party [S]tates and of its members and of their com­ pliance with the conditions and requirements of this com­ pact and the laws of the party [S]tates relating to the enactment of this compact.” 99 Stat. 1879.

Plaintiffs greatly overread this provision. The limited nature of the authority to “judge” that it confers upon the Commission is clear from its context. The first sentence of Article 7(C) states that an eligible State “shall be de­ clared” a party State “upon enactment of this compact into law by the [S]tate and upon [the] payment of” a $25,000 fee, as “required by Article 4(H)(1).” Ibid. The second sentence makes the Commission the “judge” of four mat­ ters, all of which concern status as a party State or Com mission member. First, the Commission is the judge of the “qualifications” of a State to become a party State (the qualifications set forth in Article 7(A) for the initial party States and in Article 7(B) for States that subsequently petition to join). Second, the Commission is the judge of the qualifications of the members of the Commission, which are specified in Article 4(A). Third, the Commission is the judge of a party State’s compliance with the “condi­ tions” and “requirements” of the Compact. The former term is an obvious reference to Article 7(B): “The Commis­ sion may establish such conditions as it deems necessary and appropriate to be met by a [S]tate wishing . . . to become a party [S]tate to this [C]ompact.” Id., at 1878. The accompanying term “requirements” also refers to Article 7’s prescriptions for prospective party States, such as paying the “fees required” under Article 7(C), id., at 1879, and obtaining, as Article 7(B) requires, a two-thirds vote of the Commission in favor of admission. Finally, the Commission is the judge of the “laws of the party [S]tates relating to the enactment of this compact.” Art. 7(C), ibid. Again, that concerns status as a party State, which re­ quires that the State “enac[t] . . . this compact into law,” ibid. The Commission is the “judge” of only these specific matters.

This is not to say the Commission lacks authority to interpret the Compact or to say whether a party State has violated its terms. That is of course implicit in its power to sanction under Article 7(F). But because “the express terms of the [Southeast] Compact do not constitute the Commission as the sole arbiter” regarding North Caro­ lina’s compliance with its obligations under the Compact, Texas v. New Mexico, 462 U. S., at 569, we are not bound to follow the Commission’s findings.

Plaintiffs argue that we nonetheless owe deference to the Commission’s conclusion. But unless the text of an interstate compact directs otherwise, we do not review the actions of a compact commission “on the deferential model of judicial review of administrative action by a federal agency.” Id., at 566–567. The terms of this Compact do not establish that “this suit may be maintained only as one for judicial review of the Commission’s” determination of breach. Id., at 567. Accordingly, we do not apply ad­ ministrative-law standards of review, but exercise our independent judgment as to both fact and law in executing our role as the “exclusive” arbiter of controversies between the States, §1251(a).

Plaintiffs’ next two exceptions are to the Special Mas­ ter’s recommendations to deny their motion for summary judgment on their breach-of-contract claims, and to grant North Carolina’s motion for summary judgment on those claims. In resolving motions for summary judgment in cases within our original jurisdiction, we are not techni­ cally bound by the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, but we use Rule 56 as a guide. This Court’s Rule 17.2; Ne braska v. Wyoming, 507 U. S. 584, 590 (1993). Hence, summary judgment is appropriate where there “is no genuine issue as to any material fact” and the moving party is “entitled to a judgment as a matter of law.” Fed. Rule Civ. Proc. 56(c); see Celotex Corp. v. Catrett, 477 U. S. 317, 322 (1986); Anderson v. Liberty Lobby, Inc., 477 U. S. 242, 248 (1986).

Plaintiffs claim North Carolina breached the Compact in December 1997, when (as it admits) it ceased all efforts toward obtaining a license. At that point, in their view, North Carolina was no longer “tak[ing] appropriate steps to ensure that an application for a license to construct and operate a [low-level radioactive waste storage facility] is filed with and issued by the appropriate authority,” Art. 5(C), 99 Stat. 1877. North Carolina says that once the Commission ceased providing financial assistance on December 1, and once it became clear there was insuffi­ cient funding to complete the licensing phase, there were no more “appropriate” steps to take. The Special Master concluded that the phrase “appropriate steps” in Article 5(C) was ambiguous, and that the parties’ course of per­ formance established that North Carolina was not re­ quired to take steps toward obtaining a license once it was made to bear the remaining financial burden of the licens­ ing phase. Second Report 10–24, 35–36. Plaintiffs take exception to that conclusion.

Article 5(C) does not require North Carolina to take any and all steps to license a regional-disposal facility; only those that are “appropriate.” Plaintiffs contend that this requires North Carolina to take the steps set forth in the regulations of the Nuclear Regulatory Commission govern­ ing the filing and disposition of applications for licenses to operate radioactive waste disposal facilities, 10 CFR pt. 61 (1997). Those regulations set forth some, but certainly not all, of the “steps” the State would have to take to obtain a license. But Article 5(C) does not incorporate the regula­ tions by reference, much less describe them as the appro priate steps.

We could accept Plaintiffs’ contention if “appropriate” meant “necessary” (the steps set forth in the regulation are assuredly necessary to obtaining a license). But it does not. Whether a particular step is “appropriate”— “[s]pecially suitable; fit; proper,” Webster’s Second 133— could depend upon many factors other than its mere in­ dispensability to obtaining a license. It would not be appropriate, for example, to take a step whose cost greatly exceeded whatever benefits the license would confer, or if it was highly uncertain the license would ever issue.

In determining whether, in terminating its efforts to obtain a license, North Carolina failed to take what the parties considered “appropriate” steps, the parties’ course of performance under the Compact is highly significant. See, e.g., New Jersey v. New York, 523 U. S. 767, 830–831 (1998) (SCALIA, J., dissenting); Restatement (Second) of Contracts §§202(4), 203 (1979) (hereinafter Restatement). That firmly establishes that North Carolina was not ex­ pected to go it alone—to proceed with the very expensive licensing process without any external financial assis­ tance. The history of the Compact consists entirely of shared financial burdens. From the beginning, North Carolina made clear that it required financial assistance to do the extensive work required for obtaining a license. The Commission promptly declared it was “appropriate and necessary” to assist North Carolina with the costs. App. 63. It provided the vast majority of funding for li­ censing-related activities—$80 million, compared to North Carolina’s $34 million. The Commission repeatedly noted the necessity (and propriety) of providing financial assis­ tance to North Carolina, and reiterated its dedication to sharing the substantial financial burdens of the licensing phase. See, e.g., id., at 63, 71, 145. There is nothing to support the proposition that the other States had an obli­ gation under the Compact to share the licensing costs through the Commission; but we doubt that they did so out of love for the Tarheel State. They did it, we think, because that was their understanding of how the Compact was supposed to work. One must take the Commission at its word, that it was “appropriate” to share the cost— which suggests that it would not have been appropriate to make North Carolina proceed on its own.

Nor was North Carolina required after December 19, 1997, to continue to expend its own funds at the same level it had previously (which Plaintiffs concede had satis­ fied North Carolina’s obligation to take “appropriate steps”). Once the Commission refused to provide any further financial assistance, North Carolina would have had to assume an unlimited financial commitment to cover all remaining licensing costs. Even if it maintained its prior rate of appropriations going forward, it would not have come close to covering the at least $34 million needed for the last steps of the licensing phase. And since the income from the South Carolina facility had been termi­ nated, there was no apparent prospect of funding for the construction phase (expected to cost at least $75 million). In connection with its August 1997 refusal to provide further assistance, the Commission itself had said, “[I]t will be imprudent to continue to deplete Commission resources for this purpose if a source of funds is not estab­ lished soon for the ultimate completion of the project.” Id., at 306, 307; Joint Supp. Fact Brief App. 36, 37. And in March 1998, the Commission “strongly” reiterated that “it would be imprudent to spend additional funds for licens­ ing activities if funds will not be available to complete the project.” Id., at 59. What was imprudent for the Commis­ sion would surely have been imprudent (and hence inap­ propriate) for North Carolina as well. The State would have wasted millions of its taxpayers’ dollars on what seemed to be a futile effort.

JUSTICE BREYER would uphold Plaintiffs’ challenge on this point. He believes that the Compact obligated North Carolina to fund and complete the licensing and construc­ tion of a nuclear waste facility. Post, at 2, 4–6 (opinion concurring in part and dissenting in part). In fact, how­ ever, North Carolina was not even contractually required to “secur[e] a license,” post, at 2, but only to take “appro­ priate steps” to obtain one, Art. 5(C), 99 Stat. 1877. And nothing in the terms of the Compact required North Caro­ lina either to provide “adequate funding” for or to “beg[i]n construction” on a regional facility, post, at 2. Other con­ temporaneously enacted interstate compacts expressly provide that the host State is “responsible for the timely development” of a regional facility, Central Midwest Com­ pact, Art. VI(f), 99 Stat. 1887; Midwest Compact, Art. VI(e), id., at 1898, or “shall . . . [c]ause a regional facility to be developed on a timely basis,” Rocky Mountain Low-Level Radioactive Waste Compact, Art. III(d)(i), id., at 1903–1904. But the compact here before us has no such provision, and the contrast is telling.1 Texas v. New Mex ico, 462 U. S., at 565. Moreover, the Commission’s state­ ments described in the preceding paragraph, that it would be imprudent to commit additional resources “ ‘if a source of funds is not established soon for the ultimate comple­ tion of the project,’ ” or “ ‘if funds will not be available to complete the project,’ ” surely suggest that North Carolina is not committed to the funding by contract.

JUSTICE BREYER asserts, post, at 4–5, that the rotating­ host requirement in the Compact, see Art. 5(A), 99 Stat. 1873, necessarily implies that North Carolina is solely responsible for the licensing and construction costs of its facility. But all that requirement entails is that a party State “shall not be designated” as a host State for a second time before “each [other] party [S]tate” has taken a turn. Ibid. It can perfectly well envision that the States will take turns in bearing the lead responsibility for getting the facility licensed, supervising its construction, and operating the facility on its soil. In fact, that is just what its text suggests, since it describes the responsibility that is to be rotated as the host State’s “obligation . . . to have a regional facility operated within its borders.” Ibid. Not to construct it, or pay for its construction, but to “have [it] operated within its borders.” As noted above, other con­ temporaneously enacted compacts do spell out the obliga­ tion of the host State to construct the facility. Still others at least provide that the host State will recoup its costs through disposal fees—which arguably suggests that the host State is to bear the costs. See, e.g., Central Compact, Art. III(d), 99 Stat. 1865; Northeast Compact, Art. III(c)(2), id., at 1913. The compact before us here does not even contain that arguable suggestion.

What it comes down to, then, is JUSTICE BREYER’s intui­ tion that the whole point of the Compact was that each designated host State would bear the up-front costs of licensing and construction, but would eventually recoup those costs through its regional monopoly on the disposal of low-level radioactive waste. Post, at 5–6. He can cite no provision in the Compact which reflects such an under­ standing, and the behavior of the parties contradicts it.2 It would, moreover, have been a foolish understanding, since the regional monopoly to recoup construction costs would not be a monopoly if South Carolina withdrew and contin­ ued to operate its facility—which is exactly what hap­ pened in 1995.3 Even leaving aside the principle, dis­ cussed infra, at 21, that implied obligations are not to be read into interstate compacts, JUSTICE BREYER’s intuition fails to reflect the reality of what was implied.

Plaintiffs take exception to the Special Master’s rejec­ tion of their alternative argument that North Carolina repudiated the Compact when it announced it would not take further steps toward obtaining a license. They argue that North Carolina’s announcement that it was shutting down the project constituted a refusal to tender any fur­ ther performance under the contract.

Plaintiffs’ repudiation theory fails for the same reasons their breach theory fails. A repudiation occurs when an obligor either informs an obligee “that the obligor will commit a breach that would of itself give the obligee a claim for damages for total breach,” Restatement §250(a), or performs “a voluntary affirmative act which renders the obligor unable or apparently unable to perform without such a breach,” id., §250(b). Neither event occurred here. North Carolina never informed the Commission (or any party State) that it would not fulfill its Article 5(C) obliga­ tion to take appropriate steps toward obtaining a license. Rather, it refused to take further steps that were not appropriate. Nor did North Carolina take an affirmative act that rendered it unable to perform. To the contrary, it continued to fund the Authority for almost two years; it maintained the records of the Authority; and it preserved the work completed to date while waiting for alternative funding sources that would enable resumption of the project. Plaintiffs further argue that a repudiation was effected by North Carolina’s refusal to take further steps toward licensing “except on conditions which go beyond” the terms of the Compact, Restatement §250, Comment b (internal quotation marks omitted)—i.e., the provision of external-financial assistance. But, as we have discussed, external-financial assistance was contemplated by the Compact.