New York v. New Jersey (156-Orig)

argument 156-Orig

New York v. New Jersey

Supreme Court of the United States 1h 28m 8 speakers 8 chapters transcribed 8 days ago official recording ↗

▲ 0

Transcript

jump: chapters · speakers · find in transcript

Transcript

Transcript generated automatically by AI and may contain errors.

What historical context does the argument give for the Waterfront Commission Compact’s intent?

John G. Roberts 0:00

We'll hear argument first this morning in original case 156, New York v. New Jersey. Ms. Vail?

Unknown 0:09

Mr. Chief Justice, and may it please the Court, when New York and New Jersey formed the Waterfront Commission Compact in 1953, they intended to prohibit unilateral termination. We know that from both the historical practice of compacting at the time and the circumstances of this compact. The history and tradition of compacts leading to 1953 shows the prevailing understanding that unilateral termination is not allowed unless the compact expressly grants that power. Out of 80 compacts before 1953, approximately 56 omitted a termination provision. New Jersey seems to admit that despite that omission, most of these compacts did not allow unilateral termination. When New York and New Jersey omitted a termination clause here, they intended the same result, no unilateral termination.

Unknown 0:57

New Jersey points to commercial contracts and treatises about them But states agreeing to jointly regulate labor and protect against organized crime do not have the same expectations as buyers and sellers of goods. Prior compacts and the authoritative treatise about compacts formed the state's expectations here. That treatise says that unilateral termination is not allowed unless the compact expressly says so. The text and circumstances of this compact further show that the states did not allow unilateral termination. For example, the compact requires joint agreement for nearly everything. The likely expectation was that joint agreement would be required to abolish the commission. This intent makes sense because by 1953, the states already jointly managed terminals in a shared port district through the Port Authority Compact.

Unknown 1:46

a compact that predated and is expressly linked to the waterfront compact. And that compact, the Port Authority Compact, is silent on termination after the Port Authority began operating. The states exercised their sovereignty in forming the compact here and then relied on that sovereign arrangement in developing their shared port. The states would have said expressly if they were going to allow this one state to withdraw at any time and regulate alone in their shared port. I welcome the court's

Clarence Thomas 2:16

question. If you were suing New Jersey, would you concede that you have subjected your sovereignty to this compact by not being able to withdraw?

Unknown 2:34

Well, I think, I mean, entering a compact is itself a sovereign arrangement that both states

Clarence Thomas 2:40

enter. But if you enter into it, are you permanently— subjecting yourself, your sovereignty, to the compact terms.

Unknown 2:50

Well, you are agreeing to a sovereign arrangement. I don't think that the states intended it here to be permanent. They did think there might come a time when they would jointly decide that it was time to end the compact. But when the two states here, and I think generally when many states turn to the compact form, they do that because it is a special sovereign arrangement where the states are meaning to bind themselves going forward.

Clarence Thomas 3:17

I think we agree on that, but Once doing it, is it permanent unless they agree jointly to end it if there is nothing said about the length of the compact?

Unknown 3:36

Yes. The two states here contemplated that they would end it either together when they jointly decided that it was no longer needed, or they might come together and just decide, even though we think it's needed, it's too much hassle

Clarence Thomas 3:49

and we're

Unknown 3:49

going to do something else. And in this compact, there's also one other way for it to end, which is the congressional repeal. So

Clarence Thomas 3:56

that is the other way. But they said nothing about ending it. They had other modifications and other terms that had to be jointly decided. but nothing about terminating it. So what I'm hearing you say is that if they say nothing about terminating it, they basically sacrifice their sovereignty permanently unless the other party agrees.

Unknown 4:23

Well, two responses to that. I don't think it's a sacrifice of sovereignty. I don't think compacting is a sovereign giveaway. It is a mutual exchange of sovereignty where each state gets a benefit.