Implications of Congressional Consent
Congressional consent can significantly change the nature of an interstate compact. “[W]here Congress has authorized the States to enter into a cooperative agreement, and where the subject matter of that agreement is an appropriate subject for congressional legislation, the consent of Congress transforms the States’ agreement into federal law under the Compact Clause.” Cuyler v. Adams, 449 U.S. 433, 440 (1981). Although most clearly articulated in Cuyler v. Adams, the rule that congressional consent transforms the states’ agreement into federal law has been recognized for some time. Id. at 438 n.7.
As federal law, disputes involving the application or interpretation of an interstate compact with congressional consent may be brought in federal court under 28 U.S.C. § 1331 (federal question jurisdiction), except where a compact specifically authorizes suit only in state court. Federal court jurisdiction is not exclusive; under the Supremacy Clause of the U.S. Constitution, state courts have the same obligation to give force and effect to the provisions of a congressionally approved compact, as do the federal courts. The U.S. Supreme Court retains the final word on the interpretation and application of congressionally approved compacts no matter whether the case arises in federal or state court. Del. River Joint Toll Bridge Comm'n v. Colburn, 310 U.S. 419, 427 (1940) (“[T]he construction of such a [bi-state] compact sanctioned by Congress by virtue of Article I, § 10, Clause 3 of the Constitution, involves a federal ‘title, right, privilege or immunity,’ which when ‘specially set up and claimed’ in a state court may be reviewed here on certiorari under § 237(b) of the Judicial Code.”).
Because the ICJ regulates the supervision of juveniles on probation and parole pursuant to state adjudication of delinquency or return of absconders and runaways who are primarily under the jurisdiction of state courts, most of the case law in this regard is state rather than federal. This implicates the above referenced obligation, pursuant to the Supremacy Clause of the U.S. Constitution, of state courts to give force and effect to ICJ statutory provisions and rules as a congressionally approved compact. See U.S. Const. art. VI, cl. 2.
Both State and Federal Courts must apply the Supremacy Clause in situations where there is a conflict between an interstate compact with consent and state law or state constitutions. See, e.g., Hinderlider v. La Plata River & Cherry Ditch Co., 304 U.S. 92, 106 (1938) (holding that states may, with congressional consent, enact compacts even if those compacts would conflict with rights granted under a state constitution); Wash. Metro. Area Transit Auth. v. One Parcel of Land, 706 F.2d 1312, 1321-22 (4th Cir. 1983) (Maryland may confer on an interstate agency federal quick-take condemnation powers not available to state agencies under Maryland’s constitution); Jacobson v. Tahoe Reg’l Planning Agency, 566 F.2d 1353, 1358 (9th Cir. 1977) (holding that “causes of action based on state constitutional provisions must fail because the Compact, as federal law, preempts state law.”); Frontier Ditch Co. v. Se. Colo. Water Cons. Dist., 761 P.2d 1117, 1124 (Colo. 1998) (“Thus, to the extent that there might be some arguable conflict between [the compact’s] Article VI B’s grant of exclusive jurisdiction to Kansas and the Colorado water court’s jurisdiction [granted in that state’s constitution], Article VI B is the supreme law of the land and governs the rights of the parties in this case.”).
Nonetheless, states may provide in a compact that compact provisions in conflict with a provision of a state constitution must yield, as has been agreed in art. XIII of the ICJ. By entering a compact, the member states contractually agree that the terms and conditions of the compact supersede state considerations to the extent authorized by the compact and relative to any conflicting laws or principles. In effect, compacts create collective governing tools to address multilateral issues. As such, they also govern multilaterally subject to the collective will of the member states but not under the control of any single member state. Thus, if there is conflict between the Compact and a state constitution, the state constitution prevails. Notwithstanding this provision, its applicability only arises where there is an actual conflict between the state constitution and the ICJ. See discussion infra Section 1.6.1.
PRACTICE NOTE:
Article XIII of the Revised ICJ specifies “All compacting states’ laws other than state Constitutions and other interstate compacts conflicting with this compact are superseded to the extent of the conflict.” This provision limits the application of the Supremacy Clause only to conflicts between the ICJ and state legislation, regulations, guidance documents, etc. which is discussed below in Section 1.6.1.
Courts also construe compacts with consent under federal law, and use federal law methods for interpreting compacts and reviewing interstate commissions’ interpretations and applications of compacts. See, e.g., Carchman v. Nash, 473 U.S. 716, 719 (1985); League to Save Lake Tahoe v. Tahoe Reg’l Planning Agency, 507 F.2d 517, 519 (9th Cir. 1974) (“[A] congressionally sanctioned interstate compact within the Compact Clause is a federal law subject to federal construction”); Friends of the Columbia Gorge v. Columbia River Gorge Comm’n, 213 P.3d 1164, 1170–74, 1189 (Or. 2009) (applying the federal Chevron method for reviewing the interstate commission’s interpretation of federal law granting consent to the compact). It should be noted that Chevron has subsequently been modified and now must be applied based upon the more recent decisions of the Supreme Court in Auer v. Robbins, 519 U.S. 452 (1997) as modified by Kisor v. Wilkie, 139 S. Ct. 2400 (2019)
Consent can also make federal remedies available for violation of a compact. For example, the Interstate Agreement on Detainers (to which the United States is also a signatory) is considered a law of the United States whose violation is grounds for habeas corpus relief under 28 U.S.C. § 2254. See, e.g., Bush v. Muncy, 659 F.2d 402, 407 (4th Cir. 1981), cert. denied, 455 U.S. 910 (1982).