October Term 2022 · Docket 156 ORIG.

Can New Jersey withdraw from the Waterfront Commission Compact?

New York claims the 1953 compact bans unilateral exit. New Jersey argues silence allows withdrawal.

Official caption
New York v. New Jersey
Latest argument session
Latest official Court activity
Latest verified event
Argued
Sources analyzed through
Official Transcript

Verified source milestones

  1. — An official oral-argument transcript was verified.
  2. — An official oral-argument transcript was verified.

The arguments, in order

This case may have been argued more than once. Each entry below uses that session's official transcript. Later arguments do not erase earlier ones.

  1. Argument 1 ·

    What happened at the argument

    Ms. Vale argued the 1953 compact intended to prohibit unilateral termination.

    She cited historical compacting practices and specific circumstances to support this view.

    Mr. Feigenbaum argued the compact text does not expressly limit New Jersey's withdrawal.

    He noted that most compacts deal with boundaries or water rights, not this issue.

    Read the official transcript for this argument · Official argument details

    Sources used for this argument breakdown

A citizen's guide to the whole case

What this case is about

New York seeks to block New Jersey from leaving the Waterfront Commission. New Jersey wants to reclaim its police powers. The dispute centers on the compact's silence regarding termination.

Official sources for this section

How the case got here

The Supreme Court heard oral argument in this case on March 1, 2023.

Official sources for this section

What each side wants

New York wants the Court to block New Jersey's withdrawal.

New Jersey wants the Court to allow its withdrawal.

Official sources for this section

What each side says

New York argues historical practice implies a ban on unilateral termination.

New Jersey argues the compact text does not expressly limit withdrawal.

Official sources for this section

What the justices asked

Chief Justice Roberts asked if the parties consciously omitted a termination clause.

Justice Thomas asked if silence permanently sacrifices state sovereignty.

Official sources for this section

Why it matters

This case defines how states exit interstate agreements. It determines whether silence in a compact implies a permanent lock. The outcome shapes future state cooperation and sovereignty limits.

Official sources for this section

What happens next

This article currently covers the argument record. Use the official docket link for later case activity.

Official sources for this section

Official Court provenance

Official docket and case history · Official Supreme Court oral-argument detail page

Title and summary sources

Revision history

  1. Revision 1 · Official Transcript ·

    Correction: Rewritten to the concise citizen-facing editorial standard.

  2. Revision 2 · Official Transcript ·

    Correction: Migrated to the dated official Court activity contract without model use.

Download this sanitized case as JSON