In the United States , an interstate compact is a pact or agreement between two or more states , or between states and any foreign sub-national government.
24-551: The Yellowstone River Compact is an interstate compact that was entered into by Montana , North Dakota , and Wyoming and ratified in 1950 for the purpose of providing for an equitable division and apportionment of the waters of the Yellowstone River and its tributaries , encouraging mutually beneficial development and use of the Yellowstone River Basin's waters, and furthering intergovernment cooperation between
48-548: A claim for breach of the Compact, and that Wyoming's more efficient irrigation systems do not violate the Compact. Interstate compact Most early interstate compacts resolved boundary disputes, but since the early 20th century, compacts have increasingly been used as a tool of state cooperation and mutual recognition on infrastructure, services and professional licensing, often to ease administrative barriers and reduce costs and litigation. In some cases, an agreement will create
72-474: A compact. Congress must explicitly approve any compact that would give a state power that is otherwise designated to the federal government . Treaties between the states, ratified under the Articles of Confederation during the period after American independence in 1776 until the current U.S. Constitution was ratified in 1789, are grandfathered and treated as interstate compacts. This includes agreements like
96-414: A new multi-state governmental agency which is responsible for administering or improving some shared resource such as a seaport or public transportation infrastructure. Compacts may also be limited to a certain multi-state region, may be open to all states and insular areas, or may be open to subnational governments in other countries. Interstate compacts are distinct from, but may involve aspects of,
120-443: A state sends information to Congress about an agreement, and Congress accepts and records the details. Approval may be requested in advance, or, for a type of compact in which the details could not be known before the compact was ratified, after the compact is created. The court decided that because the states informed Congress of the original survey that both states hired people to establish carefully and then enacted as legislation by
144-462: A third, more-empowered type of interstate compact, in which persistent governance structures are tasked by member states with conducting designated services. Today, Virginia is a member of the most interstate compacts at 40, while Hawaii is a member of the fewest at 15. Virginia v. Tennessee Virginia v. Tennessee , 148 U.S. 503 (1893), was a suit brought before the Supreme Court of
168-430: Is agreements that would in some fashion increase the power of a state. If a state, for example, wanted to send an exhibit to a World's Fair in another state, it would not need approval by Congress to contract to use a canal owned by another state for its exhibit or its people to pass through along the way. If a compact or agreement between two states requires congressional approval, the approval may be implied, such as if
192-580: Is not required for agreements "which the United States can have no possible objection or have any interest in interfering with" (in addition to ruling that the words "agreement" and "compact" used in the Compact Clause are synonyms). Instead, the Court required explicit congressional consent for interstate compacts that are "directed to the formation of any combination tending to the increase of political power in
216-571: The Treaty of Beaufort , which set the boundary between Georgia and South Carolina in 1787, and is still in effect. Prior to 1922, most interstate compacts were either border agreements between states or advisory compacts, the latter of which are tasked with conducting joint studies to report back to the respective state legislatures. With the creation of the Port Authority of New York and New Jersey in 1922, administrative compacts began to develop as
240-874: The United States Constitution provides that "No State shall, without the Consent of Congress ,... enter into any Agreement or Compact with another State, or with a foreign Power,..." However, in a report released in October 2019 about the proposed National Popular Vote Interstate Compact , the Congressional Research Service (CRS) cited the U.S. Supreme Court 's ruling in Virginia v. Tennessee (1893)—reaffirmed in U.S. Steel Corp. v. Multistate Tax Commission (1978) and Cuyler v. Adams (1981)—that ruled that explicit congressional consent of interstate compacts
264-483: The Compact Clause. The CRS report stated that there were approximately 200 interstate compacts in effect in 2019. The timing for Congressional consent is not specified by the Constitution, so consent may be given either before or after the states have agreed to a particular compact. The consent may be explicit, but it may also be inferred from circumstances. Congress may also impose conditions as part of its approval of
SECTION 10
#1732858870900288-557: The Constitution is legislative, then "Congress must exercise it in conformity with the bicameralism and presentment requirements of Article I, Section VII ", and noting that the Republican River Compact was initially vetoed by President Franklin D. Roosevelt in 1942, the CRS report states that if an interstate compact requires explicit congressional approval, it must be approved by both houses of Congress and signed into law by
312-517: The Court. Special Master Thompson concluded that because the Compact did not specify a fixed volume of water from the Yellowstone River or its tributaries that would be available to Montana, Wyoming's use of more efficient irrigation methods did not violate the Compact. In the opinion for Montana v. Wyoming filed May 2, 2011, the Supreme Court agreed, holding that Montana had failed to state
336-521: The President in order to become law. In Cuyler v. Adams , the Court held that congressional approval of interstate compacts makes them federal laws . The CRS report cites the Court's opinions in Virginia v. Tennessee and Northeast Bancorp v. Federal Reserve Board of Governors (1985) as stating that any agreement between two or more states that "cover[s] all stipulations affecting the conduct or claims of
360-579: The States, which may encroach upon or interfere with the just supremacy of the United States"—meaning where the vertical balance of power between the federal government and state governments is altered in favor of state governments, while the report references U.S. Steel Corp. v. Multistate Tax Commission as stating that the "pertinent inquiry [with respect to the Compact Clause] is one of potential, rather than actual, impact on federal supremacy" in noting that
384-425: The United States that sought to settle two questions: When two states have a controversy between each other, the case is filed for original jurisdiction of the Supreme Court of the United States . That is one of the very limited circumstances in which the court acts as original jurisdiction (a trial court) although, as the suit was at equity rather than law, no jury was impaneled if either side had even wanted one in
408-478: The Yellowstone River Compact by permitting the citizens of Wyoming to employ more efficient irrigation systems , causing Montana to receive less run off water than the state had originally received. When the Compact was agreed to, irrigation was accomplished mostly by flooding crop fields. Around 65% of the water would be absorbed into the soil or evaporate, leaving 35% of the water to flow back into
432-417: The first place. In all other cases, the court acts as the highest appellate court in the United States. The court decided that if a prior agreement between the two states sets the boundary, both states ratify that agreement, and one state later discovers that the boundary was wrong (such as the other state received a larger share of territory than originally planned), unless the other state agrees to change it,
456-507: The following: Several interstate compacts may establish multi-state agencies in order to coordinate policy between, or perform tasks on behalf of, member states. Such agencies may take the form of commissions, with at least one representative from a member state. Alternatively, member states to a compact may opt for cooperation with a single independent non-profit organization which carries out designated tasks without government funding. The Compact Clause ( Article I, Section 10, Clause 3 ) of
480-461: The original agreement stands. In this particular instance, the Supreme Court rejected Virginia's contention that the intent of the original "charters of the English sovereigns" should take precedent over the 1803 compromise, which sought to address the situation initially and was agreed upon by both states. As to what represents an interstate compact requiring approval from Congress, the court said it
504-487: The parties", prohibits members from "modify[ing] or repeal[ing] [the agreement] unilaterally", and requires "'reciprocation' of mutual obligations" constitutes an interstate compact. Additionally, the CRS report cites the Court's opinion in Northeast Bancorp as suggesting that a requirement of a new interstate governmental entity is a sufficient condition for an agreement to qualify as being an interstate compact under
SECTION 20
#1732858870900528-771: The potential erosion of an enumerated power of the United States Congress by an interstate compact can arguably require explicit congressional approval. The CRS report cites the Supreme Court's rulings in Florida v. Georgia (1855) and in Texas v. New Mexico and Colorado (2018) as recognizing that explicit congressional consent is also required for interstate compacts that alter the horizontal balance of power amongst state governments. Citing Metropolitan Washington Airports Authority v. Citizens for Abatement of Aircraft Noise, Inc. (1991) as stating that if an enumerated power under
552-404: The source rivers and downstream. With more efficient irrigation systems such as sprinkling, 10% or less of the water flows downstream, effectively allowing Wyoming to utilize more water. The Supreme Court granted the motion for leave of Court and appointed Stanford University natural resources law professor Bradford H. Thompson, Jr. as Special Master to try the case and recommend a decision to
576-483: The three states. The Compact became effective in 1951 and provided for the creation of the Yellowstone River Compact Commission to administer the provisions of the Compact as between the states of Montana and Wyoming. In 2007, Montana motioned the Supreme Court of the United States for leave of Court to file a bill of complaint against Wyoming and North Dakota, claiming that Wyoming had violated
#899100