Judicial Enforcement (Art. XI § C)
Courts and executive agencies of the member states must enforce the Compact and its rules by taking all necessary actions to effectuate their purposes. See Interstate Compact for Juveniles, art. VII, § A(2) (2008). See In re O.M., 565 A.2d 573, 586 (D.C. Cir. 1989) (provisions in compact requiring rendition of a juvenile to another state is required by the terms of the compact which the courts and executive agencies of the District of Columbia must enforce). The Court of Appeals in In re O.M. concluded that, “The courts of the District of Columbia have no power to consider whether rendition of a juvenile under the Interstate Compact for Juveniles is in the juvenile’s best interests.” Id. at 581. In the context of a compact, courts cannot ignore the use of the word “shall,” which creates a duty, not an option. Id.; see also A Juvenile, 484 N.E.2d 995, 997-998 (Mass. 1985).
The Commission may initiate judicial enforcement against a non-compliant state by filing a complaint or petition in the appropriate U.S. District Court. Previous complaints have been resolved through negotiated settlements. A member state that loses in any such litigation is required to reimburse the Commission for the expenses it incurred in prosecuting or defending a suit, including reasonable attorney fees. See Interstate Compact for Juveniles, art. XI, § C (2008) (prevailing party shall be awarded all costs associated with the enforcement action, including reasonable attorneys’ fees); see ICJ Rule 9-104 (Interstate Comm’n for Juveniles 2024) (In the event judicial enforcement is necessary, the prevailing party shall be awarded all costs of such litigation including reasonable attorneys’ fees. See Interstate Commission for Juveniles v. State of Rhode Island, Case No. 5:10-CV-00059 (U.S.D.C. E.D. KY, 2/17/2010).
PRACTICE NOTE:
A state seeking to sue the Commission to challenge a rule or enforce a provision of the Compact must initiate an action in one of two venues, the U.S. District Court for the District of Columbia or federal district where the Commission has its principal office, currently the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Kentucky. See Interstate Compact for Juveniles, art. VI(D), XI(C) (2008). See Com. of PA Bd. of Prob. & Parole vs. Int. Comm’n for Adult Offender Supervision, 2005 WL 419697 (D.C. Cir. 2005); The same is true for enforcement actions on behalf of the Compact Commission. See also ICAOS vs. TN Bd. of Prob. & Parole, No. 04-526-ICFS (E.D. Ky., 6/13/2005(granting permanent injunction against Tennessee for violating the compact).
The Commission is entitled to all service of process in any judicial or administrative proceeding in a member state pertaining to the subject of the Compact where the proceedings may impact the powers, responsibilities or actions of the Commission. See Interstate Compact for Juveniles, art. VII, § A(2) (2008). The Commission also has standing to intervene in any suit affecting the powers, responsibilities or actions of the Commission. Id. It is not clear what impact the failure to provide service to the Commission would have on the enforceability of a judgment vis-à-vis the Commission. However, it is reasonable to assume that because the ICJ mandates service of process whenever litigation impacts a power, responsibility or action of the Commission, the Commission is an indispensable party. The failure to join an indispensable party justifies dismissal of the suit. See, e.g., Teitelbaum v. Wagner, 99 Fed. Appx. 272, 273-74 (2d Cir. 2004).