Types of “Acts” Under the ICJ*
The distinction between discretionary and ministerial is a critical consideration for state officials charged with administering the ICJ. Many of the ICJ Rules impose ministerial acts on state officials. See, e.g., ICJ Rule 4-102 (Interstate Comm’n for Juveniles 2024) (Sending and Receiving Referrals); 5-101(4) (mandating the quarterly filing of reports); 8-101 (mandatory circumstances for issuing a travel permit). Each of these rules imposes a specific, non-discretionary obligation on state officials. For example, a state official does not exercise judgment or discretion in filing quarterly reports, although they clearly exercise discretion as to the content of the reports. By contrast, ICJ Rule 4-104 imposes both a discretionary duty and a ministerial duty on state officials in that it allows a receiving state official to deny a transfer but mandates that the sending state provide written notification of the juvenile's departure to the receiving state.
*See discussion infra Section 6.3.1 – 6.3.2. Although the Revised ICJ may not confer a private right of action in federal court, this does not necessarily mean that state officials could not be subject to suit in state court for their ministerial acts.