Interstate compacts and the Supreme Court
Interstate compacts are agreements between two or more states in the U.S. that are permitted by the Constitution, specifically in Article I, Section 10, with Congressional approval. These compacts can address a variety of issues such as water resources, pollution control, and law enforcement management, and they hold the power of statutory law, meaning they take precedence over conflicting state laws. The Supreme Court has played a significant role in interpreting and enforcing these compacts, particularly in relation to environmental and legal matters. For instance, in the late 1990s, environmental groups challenged the legality of certain interstate compacts, citing their failure to comply with federal environmental laws. Additionally, the U.S. Department of Justice sought amendments to compacts concerning the management of probationers and parolees. As a result, interstate compacts reflect the balance between state sovereignty and federal oversight, highlighting their importance in the governance of shared resources and legal frameworks. Understanding the dynamics of interstate compacts and the Supreme Court can provide insight into how states work collaboratively while navigating complex legal and environmental challenges.
Subject Terms
Interstate compacts and the Supreme Court
Description: Contracts between two or more states binding them to certain specified provisions of an agreement.
Significance: States may cooperate with each other through creation of interstate compacts. Enforcement and amendment of these compacts falls under the jurisdiction of the Supreme Court.
The U.S. Constitution provides for a federal governing system, with those powers not exercised by the federal government being retained by the states. According to Article I, section 10, of the Constitution, with the approval of Congress, states can enter into interstate compacts that involve such matters as water resources, navigation, pollution control, port development, or management of offenders of the law. Compacting states are bound to observe the terms of the agreements, even if the terms are inconsistent with other state laws. Because compacts have the force and effect of statutory law, they take precedence over any conflicting state laws.
In the late 1990’s interstate compacts governing allocation and flow of water were targeted by environmentalists in order to protect western rivers and forests. An environmental group known as the Forest Guardians filed suit in the Supreme Court under the Clean Water Act, the Endangered Species Act, and the National Environmental Policy Act to force federal and state agencies to address environmental problems created by interstate compacts and bring the compacts into compliance with environmental laws. In addition, in the late 1990’s, the U.S. Department of Justice pursued amendments to interstate compacts regarding the supervision of probationers, parolees, and fugitives from the law.