Supreme Court Sides With New Jersey
Landmark Interstate Compact Case Decided Unanimously
The Supreme Court issued an opinion on New York v. New Jersey after hearing what both sides had to say about New Jersey’s right to exit the 70 year old Waterfront Commission Compact. Since informing the public doesn’t seem to be the job of the media anymore, they'll purposely distract everyone from the basic facts and arguments made in this case. Click-driven media spin doctors will probably report on the ruling using dispositive headlines that include stereotypical tropes depicting the State as condoning mafioso misdeeds.
The explanation (called an opinion) of the unanimous ruling published by the Court is not lengthy and based on principles of contract law. Many people from various professional backgrounds and walks of life have an understanding of how contracts work. Even if you have little experience or knowledge in this area, YOU, dear reader, are capable of understanding plain English. Take the power back by reading it and drawing your own conclusions.
Supreme Court of the United States
New York v. New Jersey
Decided April 18, 2023
"Here, the Compact involves the delegation of a fundamental aspect of a State’s sovereign power—its ability to protect the people, property, and economic activity within its borders—to a bistate agency. The nature of that delegation buttresses our conclusion that New York and New Jersey did not permanently give up, absent the States’ joint consent or congressional action to terminate the Compact, their authority to withdraw from the Compact and to exercise those sovereign police powers at the Port as each State sees fit."
"In sum, background principles of contract law, reinforced here by principles of state sovereignty and the fact that the States did not intend for the Compact to operate forever, indicate that New Jersey may unilaterally withdraw from the Waterfront Commission Compact. To be clear, the contract-law rule that we apply today governs compacts (like this Compact) that are silent as to unilateral withdrawal and that exclusively call for ongoing performance on an indefinite basis. But that rule 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."
Read the full opinion of the Court.