New York v. New Jersey

Interstate compacts are "construed as contracts under the principles of contract law."Tarrant Regional Water Dist. v. Herrmann, 569 U.S. 614, 628 (2013). To resolve a dispute over the terms of a Compact, the court must, "begin by examining the express terms of the Compact as the best indication of the intent of the parties." Tarrant, 569 U.S. at 628.

Article I, § 10 of the Constitution provides that each State possesses sovereign authority to enter into a compact with another State, subject to the approval of Congress. Under this authority, New York and New Jersey entered into the Waterfront Commission Compact, which created a bistate agency charged with regulating corruption within the labor force at the Port of New York and New Jersey. In 2018, New Jersey sought to withdraw from the Compact. New York opposed this withdrawal and brought suit, arguing that the Compact does not permit either State to unilaterally withdraw. The Court found that, although the Compact specifically states that any amendments and/or supplements to the Compact must be unanimous, and Congress has the authority to "alter, amend, or repeal" the Compact, the Compact does not address whether a State may unilaterally withdraw. When the compact does not speak to a disputed issue "background contract-law principles have informed the Court's analysis."Tarrant Regional Water Dist. v. Herrmann, 569 U.S. 614, 627, no. 8 (2013). To resolve a dispute over the terms of a Compact, the court must, "begin by examining the express terms of the Compact as the best indication of the intent of the parties." Tarrant, 569 U.S. at 628. Because a contract which calls for "ongoing and indefinite performance" may be terminated at any point by any party, New Jersey may withdraw from the Compact unilaterally. Judgment on the pleadings GRANTED.