New York v. New Jersey (2023)

Last updated

New York v. New Jersey
Seal of the United States Supreme Court.svg
Argued March 1, 2023
Decided April 18, 2023
Full case nameNew York v. New Jersey
Docket no. 22O156
Citations598 U.S. 218 ( 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
Chief Justice
John Roberts
Associate Justices
Clarence Thomas  · Samuel Alito
Sonia Sotomayor  · Elena Kagan
Neil Gorsuch  · Brett Kavanaugh
Amy Coney Barrett  · Ketanji Brown Jackson
Case opinion
MajorityKavanaugh, joined by unanimous

New York v New Jersey, 598 U. S. 218 (2023), is a United States Supreme Court case in which the Court held that New Jersey had the right to unilaterally withdraw from the Waterfront Commission of New York Harbor.

Contents

Background

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

In a unanimous decision, Justice Kavanaugh delivered the opinion of the Court, holding that New Jersey had the right to unilaterally 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. Thus, given the compact's silence regarding unilateral withdrawal, a state may unilaterally withdraw from an interstate compact. State sovereignty principles, which look askance at any diminishment of state self-governance, support this conclusion. [6] However, the Court maintained that some compacts are not subject to the same analysis, for example, 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]

Related Research Articles

Arbitration, in the context of the law of the United States, is a form of alternative dispute resolution. Specifically, arbitration is an alternative to litigation through which the parties to a dispute agree to submit their respective evidence and legal arguments to a third party for resolution. In practice, arbitration is generally used as a substitute for litigation. In some contexts, an arbitrator has been described as an umpire.

Parens patriae is Latin for "parent of the nation". In law, it refers to the public policy power of the state to intervene against an abusive or negligent parent, legal guardian, or informal caretaker, and to act as the parent of any child, individual or animal who is in need of protection. For example, some children, incapacitated individuals, and disabled individuals lack parents who are able and willing to render adequate care, thus requiring state intervention.

In the United States, an interstate compact is a pact or agreement between two or more states, or between states and any foreign sub-national government.

Redistricting in the United States is the process of drawing electoral district boundaries. For the United States House of Representatives, and state legislatures, redistricting occurs after each decennial census.

<span class="mw-page-title-main">Supreme Court of New Jersey</span> Highest court in the U.S. state of New Jersey

The Supreme Court of New Jersey is the highest court in the U.S. state of New Jersey. In its current form, the Supreme Court of New Jersey is the final judicial authority on all cases in the state court system, including cases challenging the validity of state laws under the state constitution. It has the sole authority to prescribe and amend court rules and regulate the practice of law, and it is the arbiter and overseer of the decennial legislative redistricting. One of its former members, William J. Brennan Jr., became an associate justice of the Supreme Court of the United States.

<span class="mw-page-title-main">Forum selection clause</span> Contract clause which requires disputes to be resolved in a given manner or court

In contract law, a forum selection clause in a contract with a conflict of laws element allows the parties to agree that any disputes relating to that contract will be resolved in a specific forum. They usually operate in conjunction with a choice of law clause which determines the proper law of the relevant contract.

<span class="mw-page-title-main">Offer and acceptance</span> Two components of agreement

Offer and acceptance are generally recognized as essential requirements for the formation of a contract. Analysis of their operation is a traditional approach in contract law. This classical approach to contract formation has been modified by developments in the law of estoppel, misleading conduct, misrepresentation, unjust enrichment, and power of acceptance.

Commodity Futures Trading Commission v. Schor, 478 U.S. 833 (1986), was a case in which the Supreme Court of the United States held an administrative agency may, in some cases, exert jurisdiction over state-law counterclaims.

The Waterfront Commission of New York Harbor (WCNYH) was a regulatory agency in the Port of New York and New Jersey in the northeast of the United States. The bi-state agency was founded in 1953 by a Congressional authorized compact between New York and New Jersey "for the purpose of eliminating various evils on the waterfront in the Port of New York Harbor." Under statutory mandate, the mission of the commission is to investigate, deter, combat and remedy criminal activity and influence in the port district and also ensures fair hiring and employment practices.

<span class="mw-page-title-main">Professional and Amateur Sports Protection Act of 1992</span> U.S. law mostly banning sports gambling

The Professional and Amateur Sports Protection Act of 1992, also known as PASPA or the Bradley Act, was a law, judicially-overturned in 2018, that was meant to define the legal status of sports betting throughout the United States. This act effectively outlawed sports betting nationwide, excluding a few states.

There have been various proposals for the United States to withdraw from the United Nations, where it is one of the founding members and one of the five permanent members of the United Nations Security Council.

The Treaty Clause of the United States Constitution establishes the procedure for ratifying international agreements. It empowers the President as the primary negotiator of agreements between the United States and other countries, and holds that the advice and consent of a two-thirds supermajority of the Senate renders a treaty binding with the force of federal law.

De Veau v. Braisted, 363 U.S. 144 (1960), is a 5-to-3 ruling by the Supreme Court of the United States that an interstate compact restricting convicted felons from holding union office is not preempted by the National Labor Relations Act or the Labor Management Reporting and Disclosure Act, does not violate the Due Process Clause of the 14th Amendment, and is not an ex post facto law or bill of attainder in violation of Article One, Section 10 of the Constitution.

<span class="mw-page-title-main">Gambling in New Jersey</span> Overview of gambling in New Jersey

Gambling in New Jersey includes casino gambling in Atlantic City, the New Jersey Lottery, horse racing, off-track betting, charity gambling, amusement games, and social gambling. New Jersey's gambling laws are among the least restrictive in the United States. In 2013, the state began to allow in-state online gambling. Five years later, the state won a lawsuit that dismantled Nevada's monopoly on legal sports betting.

United Gas Pipe Line Co. v. Ideal Cement Co., 369 U.S. 134 (1962), is a United States Supreme Court case which vacated a lower appellate court decision, holding that federal courts should abstain from ruling on the constitutionality of a state tax issue that state courts should determine.

Lorain Journal Co. v. United States, 342 U.S. 143 (1951), is a decision of the United States Supreme Court that is often cited as an example of a monopolization violation being based on unilateral denial of access to an essential facility although it in fact involved concerted action. When the Lorain Journal monopoly over advertising in the Lorain, Ohio, area was threatened by the establishment of a competing radio station, the newspaper's publisher refused to accept advertising from those who advertised over the radio station and required them to advertise only in the Journal. The purpose of the publisher was to eliminate the competition of the radio station. The Supreme Court held that the publisher had attempted to monopolize trade and commerce in violation of § 2 of the Sherman Antitrust Act and was properly enjoined from continuing its conduct.

Murphy v. National Collegiate Athletic Association, No. 16-476, 584 U.S. 453 (2018) [138 S. Ct. 1461], was a United States Supreme Court case involving the Tenth Amendment to the United States Constitution. The issue was whether the U.S. federal government has the right to control state lawmaking. The State of New Jersey, represented here by Governor Philip D. Murphy, sought to have the Professional and Amateur Sports Protection Act (PASPA) overturned, allowing state-sponsored sports betting. The case, formerly titled Christie v. National Collegiate Athletic Association until Governor Chris Christie left office, was combined with NJ Thoroughbred Horsemen v. NCAA No. 16-477.

Alabama v. North Carolina, 560 U.S. 330 (2010), was an original jurisdiction United States Supreme Court case. It arose from a disagreement between the state of North Carolina and the other members of the Southeast Interstate Low-Level Radioactive Waste Management Compact over the funding for a joint project. Eight states had formed the compact in 1983 to manage low-level radioactive waste in the southeastern United States. In 1986, North Carolina was chosen as the location for the regional waste facility, and it asked the other states for funding to help with the project. The project stalled and was eventually shut down, despite North Carolina receiving $80 million from the other states. After the project's demise, the other states demanded their money back, but North Carolina refused to repay them, leading to this case.

Murphy v. Waterfront Commission of New York Harbor, 378 U.S. 52 (1964), was a United States Supreme Court case concerning the self-incrimination clause in the Fifth Amendment to the United States Constitution. The Court ruled that a state cannot compel a witness to provide testimony that may be incriminating under other State/Federal laws, even if it granted immunity under its own laws. Decided on the same day as Malloy v. Hogan (1964), the Supreme Court reconsidered its previous rulings that the Federal Government could compel witness testimony that could be incriminating under a state's laws, and states could similarly compel testimony that would be incriminating under Federal law.

Kelly v. United States, 590 U.S. ___ (2020), was a United States Supreme Court case involving the 2013 Fort Lee lane closure scandal, also known as "Bridgegate". The case centered on whether Bridget Anne Kelly, the chief of staff to New Jersey Governor Chris Christie who was running for reelection at the time, and Bill Baroni, the Deputy Executive Director of the Port Authority of New York and New Jersey, improperly used lane closures on the George Washington Bridge to create traffic jams as a means of retaliation against Mark Sokolich, the mayor of Fort Lee, New Jersey, when he refused to support Christie's reelection campaign. While lower courts had convicted Kelly and Baroni on federal fraud, wire fraud and conspiracy charges, the Supreme Court unanimously overturned the convictions in its May 2020 ruling, stating that such charges could not apply as "the scheme here did not aim to obtain money or property", and remanded their cases back to the lower courts.

References

  1. Hutchins, Ryan. "Christie, reversing himself, signs bill to abolish Waterfront Commission". Politico. Retrieved January 15, 2023.
  2. "U.S. Supreme Court blocks New Jersey's exit from Waterfront Commission".
  3. Howe, Amy. "Justices grant review in cases on Bank Secrecy Act and False Claims Act". ScotusBlog. Retrieved June 21, 2022.
  4. Gresko, Jessica. "New Jersey wins Supreme Court dispute against New York". AP News. The Associated Press. Retrieved April 18, 2023.
  5. New York v New Jersey, 598 U.S. 1 (2023)
  6. Paul, Brian J. "Supreme Court Decides New York v. New Jersey". faegredrinker. Retrieved April 20, 2023.
  7. New York v New Jersey, 598 U.S. 7 (2023)