New Jersey should be allowed to unilaterally dissolve an interstate compact with New York that has been in place since 1953, the U.S. Department of Justice says. 

If the U.S. Supreme Court allows the move, it could set legal precedent for more than 200 other existing agreements between states. 

The justice department filed an amicus brief this week supporting New Jersey’s unilateral withdrawal from the Waterfront Commission of New York Harbor, created nearly 70 years ago. New York has sued New Jersey over the effort to withdraw and dissolve the commission, and the Supreme Court will hear the case during its upcoming term. 

Governor Murphy said he is “thrilled” to have federal support for New Jersey’s effort to withdraw from the Waterfront Commission. 

“This nearly 70-year-old commission is outdated and inefficient, and it has become an impediment to economic growth at a time when over 80 percent of the goods that flow through the Port move through the New Jersey side,” Mr.. Murphy said. “I look forward to this case being heard before the U.S. Supreme Court, and I am confident that New Jersey will finally be able to withdraw from this commission once and for all.”

U.S. attorneys led by Solicitor General Elizabeth Prelogar argued in an amicus brief this week that New York is “mistaken” and “internally inconsistent” in its interpretation of the compact’s withdrawal requirements. 

New Jersey should be able to leave the compact without New York’s consent, the justice department argues, because doing so would protect states’ sovereign authority.

“Unilateral amendment could subject a party to obligations that it never contemplated and to which it never consented,” the brief states. “Termination, in contrast, simply restores the status quo ante, enabling each state to exercise its full sovereignty as it could have prior to the Compact’s adoption.” 

The Waterfront Commission was created in 1953 to help fight pervasive corruption at ports after an exposé by The New York Sun. 

The U.S. Constitution prohibits agreements or compacts between states without congressional approval. Congress approved the Waterfront Commission that year. The compact establishing the commission required input by both states to alter the agreement. 

An investigation by New York’s inspector general in 2009 found that the commission suffered from “a lack of accountability” and had developed a “climate of abuse.” In 2018, New Jersey passed legislation to withdraw the state from the commission, asserting that it is no longer necessary to police the ports. Assets and responsibilities for policing would transfer to New Jersey law enforcement. After overcoming a legal challenge in New Jersey’s appeals court, Mr. Murphy notified Congress of the state’s intent to withdraw from the compact, triggering a dissolution after 90 days. 

In March — just before the commission was set to dissolve — New York filed suit to prevent the Garden State from unilaterally dissolving the commission. Within weeks, the high court temporarily blocked New Jersey from unilateral withdrawal. 

Also this week, a group of eight states led by Texas’s attorney general, Ken Paxton, filed an amicus brief supporting New Jersey’s withdrawal from the compact. The states argue New York cannot force New Jersey to remain in the compact indefinitely because the original compact did not include specific terms for a withdrawal. 

“If read the way New York maintains, the compact would implicitly divest the State of New Jersey a portion of the most core of its police powers — namely, the ability to protect its citizens from criminal activity — in perpetuity,” the brief argues. 

Texas is joined by Alaska, Louisiana, Montana, Nevada, South Carolina, Utah, and Virginia — all of which are parties to what add up to dozens of interstate compacts. 

“Fundamental principles of our democratic system do not permit a State — or any sovereign — to forever contract away its police powers by implication,” the Texas brief argues. “Amici ask the Court to apply these principles when filling any gaps in the present compact and to hold that in the absence of an express provision to the contrary, a State may terminate at will a compact that delegates the State’s core police powers.” 

If allowed to move forward, New Jersey’s unilateral dissolution of the compact could provide legal precedent that would affect more than 200 other interstate compacts. Most existing compacts between states have been set since the 1940s. They involve management of water and natural resources, licensure reciprocation and employment law, boundaries, law enforcement and emergency response, and transportation. 

The Supreme Court’s term begins on October 3. Both states are expected to file motions and responses through the end of November.