Page:New York v. New Jersey (2023).pdf/2

Syllabus

stipulating only for performance terminable at the will of either party.” 1 R. Lord, Williston on Contracts §4:23, p. 570. Here, the States delegated their sovereign authority to the Commission on an ongoing and indefinite basis. The default contract-law rule therefore “speaks in the silence of the Compact” and indicates that either State may unilaterally withdraw. New Jersey v. New York, 523 U. S. 767, 784.

Principles of state sovereignty also support New Jersey’s position. “The background notion that a State does not easily cede its sovereignty has informed” this Court’s “interpretation of interstate compacts.” Tarrant, 569 U. S., at 631. The nature of the delegation at issue here—delegation of a State’s sovereign power to protect the people, property, and economic activity within its borders—buttresses the conclusion that New Jersey can unilaterally withdraw.

To be clear, the contract-law rule that governs the Compact here 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. Pp. 3–7.

(b) New York’s additional arguments in support of its view that the Compact should be read to prohibit unilateral withdrawal are unpersuasive. First, New York argues that the Court should interpret the 1953 Compact in light of pre-1953 compacts that were silent on unilateral withdrawal but were understood to forbid it. But many of those compacts concerned boundaries and water-rights allocation—the very kinds of compacts that are not governed by the default contract-law rule authorizing unilateral withdrawal. Second, New York invokes international treaty law, which New York says generally prohibits a signatory nation’s unilateral withdrawal from a treaty absent express language otherwise. But international treaty practice, to the extent it is relevant here, is equivocal. Third, New York points to the past practice of the States’ resolving Commission-related disputes. But that practice says little about whether either State could unilaterally withdraw. Fourth, New York maintains that the Court’s decision will have sweeping consequences for interstate compacts generally. But the Court’s decision does not address all compacts, and States may propose language to compacts expressly allowing or prohibiting unilateral withdrawal. Pp. 7–9.

New Jersey’s motion for judgment on the pleadings granted; New York’s cross-motion for judgment on the pleadings denied.

Kavanaugh, J., delivered the opinion for a unanimous Court.