New York sues New Jersey over New York and New Jersey’s compact port of management

This week we highlight certificate petitions (along with a original action) asked the Supreme Court to consider, among other things, whether New Jersey could withdraw from its Waterfront Commission compact with New York concerning the governance and enforcement of the Port of New York and New Jersey.

exist New York v New Jersey, New York filed its original lawsuit against New Jersey in the Supreme Court, asking a judge to decide whether New Jersey can unilaterally withdraw from the states’ waterfront commission compacts. The compact, agreed in 1953, created the New York Harbor Waterfront Commission and gave it broad regulatory and enforcement powers over port operations. To create compacts, each state passed statutes, which, as New York’s complaint bill makes clear, are constitutional requirements for interstate compacts, and Congress agreed. However, in 2018, the State of New Jersey passed an ordinance to withdraw from the compact and formally notified New York State of its intention to withdraw on December 27, 2021. New York maintains that the terms of the compact state that only Congress can repeal it, and that its violation is a violation of federal law as long as the compact represents federal statute.

In an earlier lawsuit, the Waterfront Commission sued the New Jersey governor to stop him from enforcing the law. However, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the 3rd Circuit agreed with the governor that state sovereign immunity barred litigation.For the Third Circuit, the covenant is not equivalent to federal law, so one-sided young, which allows federal courts to bar state officials from actions that allegedly violate federal law, but does not apply.Supreme Court in New York Harbor Waterfront Commission v. Murphy. However, on March 24, 2022, at the beginning of this proceeding (which is not subject to the sovereign immunity of states due to the original jurisdiction of the Supreme Court), the judge issued Order New Jersey is prohibited from “acting to unilaterally withdraw from the compact or terminate the commission pending action on the motion to file a permit complaint and, if granted, proceed with the case.”

these and other petition this week as follows:

New York v New Jersey
question: Should the Supreme Court issue a declaratory judgment and/or bar New Jersey from withdrawing from its Waterfront Commission compact with New York, which gives the New York Harbor Waterfront Commission broad regulatory and enforcement powers over all operations in Newport, York and New Jersey.

SEC v. Cochran
question: Whether a federal district court has jurisdiction to hear a lawsuit in which defendants seek to bar an ongoing SEC administrative proceeding based on alleged constitutional flaws in the statutory provisions governing the removal of administrative law judges who will sue.

Oakland, CA v. Oakland Raiders
disclose: Goldstein & Russell, PC, whose attorneys have contributed to SCOTUSblog in various capacities, is one of the petitioners’ attorneys in this case.
question: Whether a court can reject a Clayton Act cause of action for antitrust damage caused by a defendant’s violation of antitrust law based on the “antitrust status” multi-factor prudent balance test.

O’Donnell & Sons, Inc. v. New York State Department of Revenue and Treasury
disclose: Goldstein & Russell, PC, whose attorneys have contributed to SCOTUSblog in various capacities, is one of the petitioners’ attorneys in this case.
question: whether Federal Credit Union Act— Federal credit unions are exempt from “all taxes” except on credit union real property and tangible personal property — prohibit state taxes on federal credit union mortgage records.

Postmates, LLC v. Winns
question: Whether an agreement requiring individual arbitration is enforceable under the Convention Federal Arbitration Act About the basis California Labor Code Private Attorney General Act.

Ibalgan v. New York
question: Whether or under what circumstances social guests are entitled to Fourth Amendment protections against unreasonable searches of the premises they are visiting.

Hegar v. Texas Entertainment Association, Inc.
question: No, down Tax Injunction Actif a state revenue measure increases public revenue, then it is a tax, albeit for regulatory purposes, as in three circuits; if the measure lacks a corresponding administrative benefit, as in eight circuits; or only if When it has no regulatory purpose at all, as the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit has ruled.

TitleMax of Delaware, Inc. v. Weissmann
question: Whether the Dormant Business Clause prohibits Pennsylvania from extending its lending laws beyond its borders to loans to Pennsylvania residents from out-of-state lenders’ brick-and-mortar stores in Delaware, Virginia and Ohio.

Source link