General Principles of Enforcement
The Commission possesses significant enforcement authority against states that are deemed in default of their obligations under the ICJ. The decision to impose a penalty for non-compliance may rest with the Commission as a whole or one of its committees depending on the nature of the infraction and the penalty imposed. The enforcement tools available to the Commission include:
- Requiring remedial training and providing technical assistance (see Interstate Compact for Juveniles, art. XI, § B(1)(a) (2008); ICJ Rule 9-103 (Interstate Comm’n for Juveniles 2024);
- Imposing alternative dispute resolution, including mediation or arbitration (see Interstate Compact for Juveniles, art. XI, § B(1)(b) (2008); ICJ Rule 9-102) (Interstate Comm’n for Juveniles 2024);
- Imposing financial penalties on a non-compliant state (see Interstate Compact for Juveniles, art. XI, § B(1)(c) (2008); ICJ Rule 9-103 (Interstate Comm’n for Juveniles 2024);
- Suspending a non-compliant state (see Interstate Compact for Juveniles, art. XI, § B(1)(d) (2008);
- Termination from the Compact (Id. at art. XI, § B(1)(d)); and
- Initiating litigation to enforce the terms of the Compact, monetary penalties ordered by the Commission, or obtaining injunctive relief (Id. at art. XI, § C (2008).
Grounds for default include, but are not limited to, a state’s failure to perform such obligations as are imposed by the terms of the Compact, the By-laws of the Commission, or any duly promulgated rule of the Commission. A state is liable and may be found in default for the failure of an administrative or political subdivision to uphold the provisions of the Compact and its rules. As discussed in Advisory Opinion 03-2009,
Article XIII (B.) (of the ICJ statute) provides that “all lawful actions of the Interstate Commission, including all rules and bylaws promulgated by the Interstate Commission are binding upon the compacting states.” . . . As in most states, counties are specifically classified and recognized as political subdivisions of the State. . . Thus, the failure of a county to comply with the provisions of the ICJ and its duly authorized rules is tantamount to a violation by the state . . . and a default in its obligations under the compact and authorized rules.
ICJ Ad. Op. 03-2009 (Interstate Comm’n for Juveniles 2009)