Amicus Curiae Brief — Nebraska v. Central Interstate Low-Level Radioactive Waste Commission

a [Supreme Ci wuts

% FILED

No. 01-87 | AUG 15 2001

In The CLERK

Supreme Court of the United States |

4

STATE OF NEBRASKA,

Petitioner,

CENTRAL INTERSTATE LOW-LEVEL

RADIOACTIVE WASTE COMMISSION,

Respondent.

¢

On Petition For A Writ Of Certiorari

To The United States Court Of Appeals

For The Eighth Circuit

¢

BRIEF OF AMICI CURIAE STATES OF ALASKA,

CALIFORNIA, FLORIDA, HAWAII, MISSISSIPPI,

MISSOURI, MONTANA, NORTH CAROLINA, OHIO,

~SOUTH CAROLINA, UTAH, AND WEST VIRGINIA

IN SUPPORT OF PETITIONER

¢

Of Counsel: Roy Cooper

Attorney General

of North Carolina

Epwin M. Speas, Jr.”

Chief Deputy Attorney

CHaRLEs J. COOPER

Davip H. THOMPSON

Cooper & Kirk, PLLC

1500 K Street, N.W.,

General

Peo ie D.C. 20005 Department of Justice

ashington, D.C. P.O. Box 629

(202) 220-9600 Raleigh, NC 27602

(919) 716-6400

*Counsel of Record

[Additional Counsel On Inside Cover]

COCKLE LAW BRIEF PRINTING CO., (800) 225-6964

OR CALL COLLECT (402) 342-2831

Counsel for the

State of Alaska

Bruce M. BoTtTELHo

Attorney General of Alaska

P.O. Box 110300

Juneau, AK 99811

(907) 465-2133

Counsel for the

State of Calfornia

Bit. Lockyer

Attorney General for

California

1300 I Street

Suite 125

P.O. Box 944255

Sacramento, CA 94244

(916) 324-7562

Counsel for the

State of Florida

Rosert A. BUTTERWORTH

Attorney General of Florida

The Capitol PL-01

Tallahassee, FL 32399

(850) 487-1963

Counsel for the

State of Hawaii

Eart |. ANZAI

Attorney General of

Hawaii

425 Queen Street

Honolulu, Hawaii 96813

(808) 586-1500

Counsel for the

State of Mississippi

Mike Moore

Attorney General of

Mississippi

P.O. Box 220

Jackson, MS 39205

(601) 359-3680

Counsel for the

State of Missouri

JEREMIAH W. NIxon

Attorney General of

Missouri

Supreme Court Building

207 West High Street

Jefferson City, MO 65101

(573) 751-3321

Counsel for the

State of Montana

Mike McGraTH

Attorney General of

Montana

P.O. Box 201401

Helena, MT 59620

(406) 444-2026

Counsel of the

State of Ohio

Betty D. MONTGOMERY

Attorney General of Ohio

Ohio Attorney General’s

Office

30 East Broad Street,

17th Floor

Columbus, OH 43215

(614) 466-8980

i eres

Counsel for the

State of South Carolina

CHARLES M. CONDON

Attorney General of

South Carolina

P.O. Box 11549

Columbia, SC 29211

(803) 734-3970

Counsel for the

State of Utah

Mark L. SHURTLEFF

Utah “.ttorney General

236 State Capitol

Salt Lake City, Utah 84114

(801) 538-9600

Counsel for the

State of West Virginia

Darre_t V. McGraw, Jr.

Attorney General of

West Virginia

State Capitol, Room 26-E

Charleston, WV 25305

(304) 558-2021

TABLE OF CONTENTS

REASONS FOR GRANTING THE WRIT ........... 1

I. THE EIGHTH CIRCUIT’S DECISION UNDER-

MINES THE STATES’ ELEVENTH AMEND-

es er ere rr Pree rT err Ty 1

Il. THE COURT SHOULD CLARIFY THE STATES’

IMMUNITY UNDER INTERSTATE COMPACTS

IN LIGHT OF THE BROAD RANGE OF GOV-

ERNMENTAL FUNCTIONS ADDRESSED IN

PANE PURPIDUEUEO ES 656 c scence sdeccansarens« 6

8 Ee Oe Pe ere pee er errr re 12

li

TABLE OF AUTHORITIES

Page

Cases

Board of Curators v. Horowitz, 435 U.S. 78 (1978) ..10, 11

Clark v. Busey, 959 F.2d 808 (9th Cir. 1992)........... 2

College Sav. Bank v. Florida Prepaid Post Secondary

Educ. Expense Bd., 527 U.S. 666 (1999).............. 1

Edelman v. Jordan, 415 U.S. 651 (1974).............. 1,2

Ex parte Young, 209 US. 129 (USE). oa occ iscccesccsnns 3

Florida Dep't of Health & Rehabilitative Serv. v. Flor-

ida Nursing Home Ass’n, 450 U.S. 147 (1981)........ 5 -

Ford Motor Co. v. Department of Treasury, 323 U.S.

RE oon 80 a onal aha ee eee One 2

Great N. Life Ins. Co. v. Read, 322 U.S. 47 (1944)...... 1

Greater Detroit Res. Recovery Auth. v. EPA, 916 F.2d

ge ee | eee eT ere Teer eer eer ere eT y

Gregory v. Ashcroft, 501 U.S. 452 (1991)............... +

Kaiser Aluminum & Chem. Corp. v. Bonjorno, 494

ee a Ere irr Pr eer Pre ee errr er =

Kennecott Copper Corp. v. State Tax Comm'n, 327

Ge ED COE 46 ac RAV RAK REAM AA had DR KEEL ADRK DER AON 5

Landgraf v. USI Film Prods., 511 U.S. 244 (1994)....... +

Lane v. United States, 727 F.2d 18 (1st Cir. 1984)...... 2

Milliken v. Bradley, 418 U.S. 717 (1974) .............. 11

Murray v. Wilson Distilling Co., 213 U.S. 151 (1909) .....1

New Jersey v. New York, 523 U.S. 767 (1998)........... 8

ill

TABLE OF AUTHORITIES - Continued

Page

Port Auth. Trans-Hudson Corp. v. Feeney, 495 U.S.

298 (OPE ik vin ick 4 aes Suis ieee see 6

Texas v. New Mexico, 482 U.S. 124 (1987) ............. +

STATUTES

a8 USA... & DRUID 6 oi cae ns iis ciden neue os 2

Agreement on Qualification of Educ. Personnel,

ALASKA Stat. §§ 14.20.620--650 (2001).............. 11

Alabama-Coosa-Tallapoosa River Basin Compact,

Ga. Cope ANN. § 12-10-110 (Michie 2000) .......... a

Apalachicola-Chattahoochee-Flint River Basin

Compact, Pia. Stat. § 379.71 (AMG) ois cc ccsacins 5

Breaks Interstate Park Compact, Ky. Rev. Stat.

ANN. §§ 148.022, 148.220--235 (Michie 2001)........ 8

California-Nevada Interstate Cc impact, Nev. Rev.

Stat. ANN. § 538.600 (Michie 2001)................. 5

Colorado River Crime Enforcement Compact,

Amz. Rav. Stat. § 37-Gi0.11 GHGS) 6 cn ccc ckcicscuawes 9

Columbia River Gorge Compact, Or. Rev. Stat.

© 9G TO CEPIF) oan csi ds caceweaans canbe eee ~

Compact for Pension Portability for Educators,

Ri. Coun. Laws § 16-17.2-1 GE). 6 ow ics de enciaes 11

Connecticut & New Netherlands Boundary Agree-

enemies O80 BOD oie cscs ic cncislacsseanseaeeuentaee 7

Connecticut River Atlantic Salmon Compact,

Conn. Gan. Srat. § 26-302 (2001) ook cece ccs aeeces 8

Connecticut River Valley Flood Control Compact,

Conn. GEN. Stat. §§ 25-99--102 (2001) ............ 4,9

iV

TABLE OF AUTHORITIES - Continued

Connecticut-New York R.R. Passenger Transp. Com-

pact, Conn. Gen. Stat. §§ 16-343 & 16-344 (2001)

Delaware River & Port Auth. Compact, 36 Pa.

Cons. Stat. §§ 3503.2--3510.7 (2001) ...........

Delaware River Basin Compact, Det. Cope Ann. 7,

€ 6001 GOOEY... icecvsscessatssaeee

Delaware River Joint Toll Bridge Compact, N.J.

Stat. ANN. §§ 32:8-1--23 (West 2001)...........

Emergency Management Assistance Compact,

Mass. Spec. Laws 93, § 1 (2001) ...............

Emergency Preparedness Compact, Micu. Stat.

Ann. § 30.404 (Michie 2001) ..................

Gulf States Marine Fisheries Compact, La. Rev.

Stat. ANN. §§ 56:71--86 (West 2000) ...........

Interstate Couipact on Mental Health, Ga. Cope

ANN. §§ 37-10-1--3 (Michie 2000)..............

Interstate Compact On Pest Control, Dre. Cope

Ann. 3, §§ 9001, 9002-9027 (2001).............

Interstate Compact To Conserve Oil & Gas, 45 ILL.

Comp. Stat. §§ 55/0.01--6 (2001)...............

Interstate Earthquake Emergency Compact, INp.

Cope § 10-4-3-1 (2000) .........cccceeeeeeeeees

Interstate Fuel Tax Agreement, UtaH Cope ANN.

G D1S-SUS GEOG) oo ccvscteccsansudseeescenens

Interstate Mining Compact, INp. Cope ANN.

§§ 14-35-4-1--3 (Burns 2000)...................

Vv

TABLE OF AUTHORITIES - Continued

Page

Interstate Rail Passenger Network Compact, 45

es. Cem BENE T77 EE GRPGE) odo cdccacteaccavaces 10

Jennings Randolph Lake Project Compact, W. Va.

RE, Se SO EER in asses ksadssseneecacs 4G

Kansas & Missouri Metro. Culture Dist. Compact,

Kan. Stat. ANN. § 12-2536 (2000)................... 5

Kansas-Missouri Air Quality Compact, Mo. Rev.

BE: BS Ge GO oc cede nsncccndacsanawasicanes 5

Kansas-Missouri Flood Prevention & Control

Compact, Mo. Rev. Stat. § 70.327 (2000)............ 9

Kentucky & Tennessee Boundary Compact of 1820..... 7

Klamath River Basin Compact, on. Rev. Stat.

BF Bs. OPPVPerrrr Tree yy, PereerTeeererrrere 5

Massachusetts & Rhode Island Boundary Agree-

ROUND GE TPES GETING oe cccasiccctancessesdcesenass 7

Menominee River Bridge Agreement, Kan. STAt.

ee i | PPT TererTPrr errr rerrre 10

Merrimack River Flood Control Compact, N.H.

Rev. Stat. ANN. §§ 484:7--12 (2000) ............... 9

Mid-Atlantic States Air Pollution Control Com-

pact, Conn. Gen. Stat. § 22a-166 (2001) ............ 5

Midwestern Higher Educ. Compact, Kan. Stat.

ANN. § 72-60b01--603 (2000)..................44. 5, 11

Mississippi River Interstate Pollution Phase Out

Compact, La. Rev Stat. ANn. §§ 30:2091--2093

PPP eer ere Teper Tre ePerer ery TTT TTT 9

Missouri & Arkansas Boundary Compact of 1846..... 7

vi

TABLE OF AUTHORITIES —- Continued ~

Missouri-Kansas Compact Creating Kansas City

Area Transp. Dist. & Kansas City Area Transp.

Auth., Mo. Rev. Stat. § 238.010 (2000)..........

Multistate Highway Transp. Agreement, Wyo.

Stat. ANN. §§ 31-18-901 & 31-18-902 (Michie

BAD ik Keen sce ceusedcheatawrdnatexvetacdseeaas

Multistate Lottery Agreement, Kan. Stat. ANN.

GE 74-8731 & 74-B752 CAD) 6 onc cwcccccccsscns

Multistate Tax Compact, Coro. Rev. Stat.

§§ 24-60-1301--1307 (2000) .............-. 0. eee

DLS. Lewe, 3920 CM. E50, W. SEZ. ccc csccvsesess

N.Y. Lowe, 1921, Ch. 205, p. BOL... cs cccscseces

National Guard Mut. Assistance Counter-Drug

Activities Compact, Wasn. Rev. Cope § 38.08.500

et Pre ee ee re er re ere ee

New England Higher Educ. Compact, Conn. GEN.

Stat. §§ 10a-61--64 (2001) ...........c cece ee eee

New England Interstate Corrections Compact, Vr.

Stat. ANN. 28, §§ 1401--31 (2001)............00.

New England Interstate Water Pollution Control

Compact, Conn. GEN. Stat. § 22a-309 (2001)....

New England Interstate Water Pollution Control

Compact, Me. Rev. Stat. ANN. 38, §§ 491-537

Serer ree rr rr ery rr ery

New England State Police Compact, Mass. Spec.

eer’ SE ENT ee raoer

New England States Emergency Military Aid

Compact, Mass. Spec. Laws 91, § 1 (2001) ......

eter re NM

Vil

TABLE OF AUTHORITIES - Continued

Page

New Hampshire-Maine Sch. Dist. Compact, N.H.

Rev. Stat. ANN. § 200-F:1 (2000)................. 5, 11

New Hampshire-Vermont Interstate Sch. Com-

pact, N.H. Rev. Stat. ANN. § 200-B:1 (2000)........ 10

New Jersey-Pennsylvania Turnpike Bridge Com-

pact, 36 Pa. Cons. Stat. §§ 3511--13 (2001)......... 10

New York & Connecticut Boundary Agreement of

Re ry eee ee eee ee eer ya Trey rere eT ee 7

New York-Vermont Interstate Sch. Compact, Vr.

STAT. ANN. 16 $5 .791-O05 (Z00)]) 21205 ce cece cesnss 10

North Carolina & South Carolina Boundary

PI GET so cho oes Aes hia e nese 7

Northeast Mississippi-Northwest Alabama R.R.

Auth. Compact, Ata. Cope § 37-11A-1 (1992)...... 10

Northeast Mississippi-Northwest Alabama R.R.

Auth. Compact, Ata. Cope § 37-11A-1 (2001)....... +

Oregon & Washington Agreement of 1915, 40 stat.

EE ne AGES 001A G2 Aso oe KORE RRMA KN Od CERE SS BOA 8

Pennsylvania & New Jersey Agreements of 1783 &

See Tee eT TEE eT LCC Eee ee ere Tee ree err C er ey 7

Pennsylvania & Virginia Boundary Agreement of

i RP re ry een Perr rr rey err rrr re 7

Rhode Island & Connecticut Boundary Agreement

fh MR cer rye Tree Trey se PP eT Ter ee TT ETE Tere 7

South Carolina & Georgia Agreement of 1788........ 7

Southern Rapid Rail Transit Compact, Ata. Cope

Eg obo ee.) ree rer rr er seer are 10

Vill

TABLE OF AUTHORITIES - Continued

Page

Susquehanna River Basin Compact, 32 Pa. Cons.

ON Te NMED eas he teddeces céwksediaesdietaranes 5

Tahoe Reg’] Planning Compact, Nev. Rev. Stat.

ANN. §§ 277.190--200 (Michie 2001)............... 3, 9

Tennessee Interstate Furlough Compact, TENN.

Cope ANN. §§ 41-23-201--209 (2001) ................ 9

Thames River Valley Flood Control Compact,

Conn. GEN. Stat. §§ 25-101 & 25-102 (2001) ........ 9

The Interstate Compact On Mental Health, Ga.

Cope’Ann. §§ 37-10-1--3 (2000)................005. 10

Tri-State High Speed Rail Line Compact 45 Itt.

COMM TEARS FSCS CA) 6 soc nce s sec eaainses 10

Tri-State Lotto Compact, N.H. Rev. Stat. ANN.

SE SRO ED CT Ks Ko was ohne eda wAo ohn eenas sen 10

Upper Niobrara River Compact, Wyo. Stat. ANN.

Br ee | eeerrerer rere rr errors 5

Utah Interstate Furlough Compact, UtaH Cope

Pe. OS FP a Le) 6 hoa ids Fen sande ce ena a 9

Virginia & Kentucky Compact of 1789 ............... 7

Washington Metro. Area Transit Regulation Auth.

Compact, Mp. Transp. Cope ANN. § 10-204 (2001) .... 10

Western Interstate Corrections Compact, Wyo.

Stat. ANN. §§ 7-3-401--406 (Michie 2001) ........... 9

Western Reg’l Higher Educ. Compact, Nev. Rev.

Stat. ANN. §§ 397.010--080 (2001)...............6.. 11

ix

TABLE OF AUTHORITIES - Continued

Page

Wheeling Creek Watershed Prot. & Flood Preven-

tion Dist. Compact, W. Va. Cope §§ 29-1F-1--5

| ee Pep Opee Cr rr rere rene er py ree 9

Wildlife Violator Compact, UtaH Cope ANN.

eS a ear rere een ere 8

Yellowstone River Compact, Mont. Cope ANN.

ae CN £5 Vinci Nasa ewde eae on rues wees 6

OTHER

Felix Frankfurter & James M. Landis, The Compact

Clause of the Constitution — A Study in Interstate

Adjustments, Tae 0.J. 785 CIIZS) «aca cnccves wae ss 7,%

REASONS FOR GRANTING THE WRIT

I. THE EIGHTH CIRCUIT’S DECISION UNDER-

MINES THE STATES’ ELEVENTH AMENDMENT

IMMUNITY.

The Eighth Circuit’s decision substantially erodes

States’ Eleventh Amendment immunity with regard to

their obligations under interstate compacts. Every State

in the Union is a signatory to such agreements, and these

compacts address a wide range of subjects, including

many that implicate areas traditionally regulated by the

States. The Eighth Circuit’s decision anoints the lower

federal courts as the arbiters of disputes arising under

these agreements in the absence of an explicit disclaimer

of such authority. This expansive view of federal judicial

authority trammels upon this Court’s well-established

Eleventh Amendment jurisprudence and thus the settled

expectations of the States.

The Eighth Circuit’s decision undermines States’

Eleventh Amendment immunity in two distinct ways.

First, the court’s decision jettisons the traditional princi-

ple that a State’s waiver of such immunity will not be

implied. As this Court has repeatedly made clear, States

are deemed to have waived their Eleventh Amendment

rights only where the waiver is “stated ‘by the most

express language or by such overwhelming implications

from the text as [will] leave no room for any other reason-

able construction.’ ” Edelman v. Jordan, 415 U.S. 651, 673

(1974) (quoting Murray v. Wilson Distilling Co., 213 U.S.

151, 171 (1909)). See also College Sav. Bank v. Florida Prepaid

Postsecondary Educ. Expense Bd., 527 U.S. 666, 676 (1999)

(citing Great N. Life Ins. Co. v. Read, 322 U.S. 47, 54 (1944)).

To be sure, the Eighth Circuit parroted this standard,

but the court premised its finding of waiver on the

absence of any evidence that Nebraska had expressly

preserved its sovereign immunity. Petition Appendix at

63a. Thus, the court turned the requirement of an explicit

waiver of immunity on its head. The only evidence cited

by the court regarding Nebraska’s consent to federal

jurisdiction was the compact’s provision authorizing the

Commission to bring an enforcement action in a court of

law “that has jurisdiction over any matter arising under”

the compact. Petition Appendix at 64a (emphasis added).

But this language on its face does not vest jurisdiction in

any court; it merely says that if jurisdiction over compact

disputes has been properly vested in a court of law by an

independent statutory or contractual provision — that is,

one specifically waiving States’ sovereign immunity -

then an action enforcing the compact can be brought in

that court.

In this regard, the language of the compact is indis-

tinguishable from that in statutes such as the Equal

Access to Justice Act, which provides for enforcement of

actions “in any court having jurisdiction.” 28 U.S.C.

§ 2412(a). It is well settled that the Equal Access to Justice

Act, which allows for the recovery of fees and costs in

litigation against the United States, does not vest courts

with jurisdiction. See, e.g., Greater Detroit Res. Recovery

Auth. v. EPA, 916 F.2d 317, 320 (6th Cir. 1990) (“The Equal

Access to Justice Act does not contain an independent

grant of jurisdiction .... ”). Rather, an independent

statutory grant of subject matter jurisdiction is a “condi-

tion precedent” for invoking the statute. See, e.g., Clark v.

Busey, 959 F.2d 808, 810 (9th Cir. 1992); Lane v. United

States, 727 F.2d 18, 19 (1st Cir. 1984); Greater Detroit, 916

F.2d at 320. So too, the compact’s language merely begs

the question whether lower federal courts have jurisdic-

tion to enforce the compact. For this reason, the Eighth

Circuit’s decision can only be understood to hold that a

waiver of sovereign immunity need not be explicit in

interstate compacts.

Second, the court of appeals inappropriately con-

verted the compact’s provision for enforcement through

prospective relief into a waiver for claims of monetary

damages. As the plain language of the compact reflects,

the State of Nebraska did, in fact, consent to suits for

prospective relief to enforce “performance” of the com-

pact’s terms in courts that have jurisdiction. See Article

Ill(f), Add. 28.1 Even if this clause were construed to

permit suits in federal courts, it would amount to little

more than a recognition of the unremarkable proposition

that injunctive relief can be obtained in federal court

against state officers. See, e.g., Ex parte Young, 209 U.S. 123

(1908). In contrast to the availability of such injunctive -

relief in federal court, this Court has consistently

enforced a strict prohibition on suits seeking monetary or

other retrospective relief against a State in the absence of

an explicit waiver of immunity. Edelman, 415 U.S. at 663

(citing Ford Motor Co. v. Department of Treasury, 323 U.S.

459 (1945)). Here, the Eighth Circuit simply ignored the

fundamental difference between prospective and retroac-

tive relief, thereby opening States to unlimited liability

for claims brought under interstate compacts.

1 “Add.” refers to the Addendum to the State of Nebraska’s

Opening Brief in the Eighth Circuit in Appeal No. 99-4263.

The Eighth Circuit’s sharp departure from this

Court’s longstanding Eleventh Amendment precedent

will disturb the settled expectations of States that have

carefully framed acceptable enforcement provisions in

interstate compacts. As this Court has consistently recor-

nized, such compacts are contractual in nature. See, e.g.,

Texas v. New Mexico, 482 U.S. 124, 128 (1987). States have

negotiated in light of this Court’s uniform precedents

holding that waivers of sovereign immunity will not be

implied. Any change in this default rule of interpretation

would bind the States to obligations not contemplated at

the time of compact formation. As this Court has empha-

sized, “settled expectations should not be lightly dis-

rupted.” Landgraf v. USI Film Prods., 511 U.S. 244, 265

(1994). See also Kaiser Aluminum & Chem. Corp. v. Bonjorno,

494 U.S. 827, 855 (1990) (Scalia, J., concurring) (“The

principle that the legal effect of conduct should ordinarily

be assessed under the law that existed when the conduct

took place has timeless and universal human appeal.”).

This general rule applies with particular force where, as

here, such a change in expectations will disturb the “deli-

cate balance” between the States and the federal govern-

ment. See Gregory v. Ashcroft, 501 U.S. 452, 460 (1991).

The Eighth Circuit’s endorsement of an implied

waiver theory will have just such consequences for many

interstate compacts. It is commonplace for the enforce-

ment clauses of such compacts to permit signatory states

to “sue or be sued”? or to permit suits in “courts of

2 Connecticut River Flood Control Compact, Conn. Gen.

Stat. § 25-99 (2001); Northeast Mississippi-Northwest Alabama

R.R. Auth. Compact, Ata. Cope § 37-11A-1 (2001); Columbia

competent jurisdiction.”? As this Court has previously

made clear, such language does not effectuate a waiver of

Eleventh Amendment sovereign immunity. See, e.g.,

Kennecott Copper Corp. v. State Tax Comm'n, 327 U.S. 573,

577-79 (1946); Florida Dep’t of Health & Rehabilitative Serv.

v. Florida Nursing Home Ass’n, 450 U.S. 147, 149 (1981) (per

curiam). The language of Nebraska’s compact is indis-

tinguishable from that before the Court in Kennecott Cop-

per. Thus, any State signing a compact with such

River Gorge Compact, Or. Rev. Stat. § 196.150 (1999); Kansas &

Missouri Metro. Culture Dist. Compact, Kan. Stat. ANN.

§ 12-2536 (2000); Merrimack River Flood Control Compact, N.H.

Rev. Stat. ANN. § 484:7 (2000); New Hampshire-Maine Interstate

Sch. Compact, N.H. Rev. Stat. ANn. § 200-F:1 (2000); Midwestern

Higher Educ. Compact, Kan. Stat. ANN. § 72-60b01 (2000);

Delaware River Joint Toll Bridge Compact, N.J. Stat. ANn.

§ 32:8-3 (West 2001); Missouri-Kansas Compact Creating Kansas

City Area Transp. Dist. & Kansas City Area Transp. Auth., Mo.

Rev. Stat. § 238.010 (2000).

3 Interstate Compact on Mental Health, Ga. Cope Ann.

§ 37-10-2 (Michie 2000); Upper Niobrara River Compact, Wyo.

Stat. ANN. § 41-12-701 (Michie 2001); Susquehanna River Basin

Compact, 32 Pa. Cons. Stat. § 820.1 (2001); Klamath River Basin

Compact, Or. Rev. Stat. § 542.620 (1999); Alabama-Coosa-

Tallapoosa River Basin Compact, Ga. Cope Ann. § 12-10-110

(Michie 2000); Tahoe Reg’] Planning Compact, Nev. Rev. Star.

ANN. § 277.200 (Michie 2001); California-Nevada Interstate

Compact, Nev. Rev. Stat. ANN. § 538.600 (Michie 2001); Mid-

Atlantic States Air Pollution Control Compact, Conn. Gen. Stat.

§ 22a-166 (2001); New England Interstate Water Pollution

Control Compact, Conn. Gen. Stat. § 22a-309 (2001); Delaware

River Basin Compact, Det. Cope ANN. 7, § 6501 (2001);

Apalachicola-Chattahoochee-Flint River Basin Compact, Fra.

Stat. § 373.71 (2000); Kansas-Missouri Air Quality Compact, Mo.

Rev. Stat. § 643.600 (2000).

enforcement language would have naturally and justifia-

bly expected to retain its Eleventh Amendment immunity.

The Eighth Circuit’s decision introduces constitu-

tional uncertainty that cannot help but be highly disrup-

tive of the settled expectations of signatory States. The

implied waiver approach is no more appropriate in the

context of this compact case than it is in any of the other

contexts discussed by this Court. See, e.g., Port Auth.

Trans-Hudson Corp. v. Feeney, 495 U.S. 299, 305 (1990). The

Eighth Circuit’s ruling to the contrary should be rejected,

and this Court should reaffirm the continued application

of the explicit waiver requirement to interstate compacts.

States wishing to submit any disputes under these com-

pacts to resolution by the federal judiciary are entirely

capable of drafting explicit contractual language to that

effect.4

II. THE COURT SHOULD CLARIFY THE STATES’

IMMUNITY UNDER INTERSTATE COMPACTS IN

LIGHT OF THE BROAD RANGE OF GOVERN-

MENTAL FUNCTIONS ADDRESSED IN SUCH

AGREEMENTS.

Given the broad array of governmental functions

addressed in interstate compacts, the rules for resolving

disputes under these agreements is an issue of utmost

national importance, amply warranting this Court’s

review. Indeed, the very purpose of many of these com-

pacts is for the signatory States to establish a mechanism

4 See, e.g., Yellowstone River Compact, Mont. Cope ANN.

§ 85-20-101 (2000).

for resolving contentious issues, rather than submitting

them to federal judicial resolution, and the selection of an

appropriate enforcement mechanism is central to that

objective. The Eighth Circuit’s- decision undermines this

purpose by opening the possibility that a federal forum

can, by implication and not by design, entirely supplant

the signatory States as the essential compact decision-

makers. This Court should grant the State of Nebraska’s

petition to provide guidance to States seeking to enforce

the wide range of obligations arising under these agree-

ments.

Interstate compacts are deeply rooted in the Nation’s

history. See Felix Frankfurter & James M. Landis, The

Compact Clause of the Constitution — A Study in Interstate

Adjustments, YALE L.J. 785, 792 (1925). In the colonial era,

such compacts were largely confined to the resolution of

boundary controversies.° This trend continued during the

Articles of Confederation and in the early years of the

Republic.® To this day, interstate compacts play an

5 See, e.g., Connecticut & New Netherlands Boundary

Agreements of 1656; Rhode Island & Connecticut Boundary

Agreement of 1663; New York & Connecticut Boundary

Agreement of 1664; Massachusetts & Rhode Island Boundary

Agreements of 1710 & 1719; North Carolina & South Carolina

Boundary Agreement of 1735.

6 See, e.g., Pennsylvania & Virginia Boundary Agreement of

1780; Pennsylvania & New Jersey Agreements of 1783 & 1786;

South Carolina & Georgia Agreement of 1788; Virginia &

Kentucky Compact of 1789; Kentucky & Tennessee Boundary

Compact of 1820; Missouri & Arkansas Boundary Compact of

1846.

important role in resolving such boundary disputes. See,

e.g., New Jersey v. New York, 523 U.S. 767 (1998).

By the beginning of the twentieth century, the scope

of issues addressed by such compacts had expanded con-

siderably. For example, States formed compacts to man-

age shared natural resources, such as fisheries in

boundary waters.” In some instances, administrative

agencies were formed to permit joint management of

issues of common concern. For example, in 1921 the

States of New York and New Jersey entered into a com-

pact to establish an interstate administrative agency, the

New York Port Authority, which was authorized to for-

mulate a comprehensive plan for the operation of the Port

of New York.§ Other compacts addressed jurisdictional

issues arising in criminal cases, uniformity of legislation,

regulation of utilities, and taxation. See Frankfurter, pp.

696-704.

Today, the States use interstate compacts to address

an even broader range of important issues, such as

conservation and resource management,’ law enforce-

7 Oregon & Washington Agreement of 1915, 40 stat. at L.

515.

8 N.Y. Laws, 1921, Ch. 203, p. 841; N.J. Laws, 1921, Ch. 151,

p. 412.

9 Breaks Interstate Park Compact, Ky. Rev. Stat. ANN.

§§ 148.022, 148.220-148.235 (Michie 2001); Connecticut River

Atlantic Salmon Compact, Conn. Gen. Star. § 26-302 (2001); Gulf

States Marine Fisheries Compact, La. Rev. Stat. ANN.

§§ 56:71--86 (West 2000); Interstate Compact To Conserve Oil &

Gas, 45 Itt. Comp. Stat. §§ 55/0.01--6 (2001); Interstate Mining

Compact, IND. Cope Ann. §§ 14-35-4-1--3 (Burns 2000); Wildlife

Violator Compact, Utan Cope ANN. §§ 23-25-1--13 (2001);

seme noes ele ne et te

ment,!° taxation,!! flood control,12 emergency manage-

ment,!> nuclear waste disposal, and transportation.}*

Jennings Randolph Lake Project Compact, W. Va. Cope

§§ 29-1J-1--2 (2001); Mississippi River Interstate Pollution Phase

Out Compact, La. Rev. Stat. ANN. §§ 30:2091-2093 (West 2000);

New England Interstate Water Pollution Control Compact, Me.

Rev. Stat. ANN. 38, §§ 491-537 (West 2000); Tahoe Reg’! Planning

Compact, Nev. Rev. Stat. §§ 277.190--220 (2001); Wheeling Creek

Watershed Prot. & Flood Prevention Dist. Compact, W. Va. Cope

§§ 29-1F-1--5 (2001).

10 Colorado River Crime Enforcement Compact, Ariz. Rev.

_ Stat. § 37-620.11 (2000); Utah Interstate Furlough Compact,

UtaH Cope ANN. §§ 77-34-1--8 (2001); National Guard Mut.

Assistance Counter-Drug Activities Compact, WasH. Rev. Cope

§ 38.08.500 (2001); New England Interstate Corrections

-Compact, Vt. Stat. ANN. 28, §§ 1401--31 (2001); New England

State Police Compact, Mass. Spec. Laws 111, §§ 1-3 (2001);

Tennessee Interstate Furlough Compact, Tenn. Cope ANN.

§§ 41-23-201--209 (2001); Western Interstate Corrections

Compact, Wyo. Stat. ANN. §§ 7-3-401--406 (Michie 1959).

11 Interstate Fuel Tax Agreement, Utan Cope ANN.

§ 59-13-502 (2001); Multistate Tax Compact, Coro. Rev. Stat.

§§ 24-60-1301--1307 (2000).

12 Connecticut River Valley Flood Control Compact, Conn.

Gen. Stat. §§ 25-99--102 (2001); Kansas-Missouri Flood

Prevention & Control Compact, Mo. Rev. Stat. § 70.327 (2000);

Merrimack River Flood Control Compact, N.H. Rev. Stat. ANN.

§§ 484:7--12 (2000); Thames River Valley Flood Control

Compact, Conn. Gen. Stat. §§ 25-101 & 25-102 (2001).

13 Emergency Management Assistance Compact, Mass.

Spec. Laws 93, § 1 (2001); Emergency Preparedness Compact,

Micu. Stat. ANN. § 30.404 (Michie 2001); Interstate Earthquake

Emergency Compact, Inp. Cope § 10-4-3-1 (2000); New England

States Emergency Military Aid Compact, Mass. Spec. Laws 91,

§ 1 (2001).

14 Connecticut-New York R.R. Passenger Transp. Compact,

Conn. Gen. Stat. §§ 16-343 & 16-344 (2001); Delaware River Joint

10

Indeed, areas that lie at the core of the States’ traditional

sovereign functions, such as pest control,!> lotteries,!¢

and mental health,!” are also the subject of interstate

compacts. Even the States’ responsibilities in the field of

public education are addressed in compacts. See Board of

Curators v. Horowitz, 435 U.S. 78, 91 (1978) (“ ‘[P]ublic

education in our Nation is committed to the control of

state and local authorities.’ ”) (citation omitted). For

example, several compacts create interstate school dis-

tricts to ensure that certain regions have districts with

adequate financial resources.!§ Regional higher education

Toll Bridge Compact, N.J. Stat. ANN. §§ 32:8-1--23 (West 2001);

Delaware River & Port Auth. Compact, 36 Pa. Cons. Stat.

§§ 3503.2--3510.7 (2001); Interstate Rail Passenger Network

Compact, 45 Itt. Comp. Stat. 77/1-49 (2001); Menominee River

Bridge Agreement, Kan. Stat. ANN. 68-1601--06 (2000);

Multistate Highway Transp. Agreement, Wyo. Stat. ANN.

§§ 31-18-901 & 31-18-9002 (Michie 2001); New Jersey-

Pennsylvania Turnpike Bridge Compact, 36 Pa. Cons. Stat.

§§ 3511--13 (2001); Northeast Mississippi - Northwest Alabama

R.R. Auth. Compact, Ata. Cope § 37-11A-1 (2001); Southern

Rapid Rail Transit Compact, Ata. Cope § 37-11-1 (2001); Tri-

State High Speed Rail Line Compact, 45 Itt. Comp. Star.

75/0.01--3 (2001); Washington Metro. Area Transit Regulation

Auth. Compact, Mp. Transp. Cope ANN. § 10-204 (2001).

15 Interstate Compact On Pest Control, Det. Cope ANN. 3,

§§ 9001, 9002-9027 (2001).

16 Multistate Lottery Agreement, Kan. Stat. ANN.

§§ 74-8731 & 74-8732 (2000); Tri-State Lotto Compact, N.H. Rev.

Stat. ANN. §§ 287-F:1--19 (2000).

17 The Interstate Compact On Mental Health, Ga. Cope

Ann. §§ 37-10-1--3 (2000).

18 See, e.g., New Hampshire-Vermont Interstate Sch.

Compact, N.H. Rev. Stat. Ann. § 200-B:1, art. XII (2000); New

York-Vermont Interstate Sch. Compact, Vr. Stat. ANN. 16

—eeeeeeEeEEeEeEEeEe—e——eeEeEEeEe

en ee ee SO A aS

ee ee er ree

DbictR. Altec a tee 2 stata aE i Oe

11

compacts have been formed with the purpose of further-

ing regional access to and research in medicine, dentistry,

and other such professions.!9 And several compacts seek

to encourage interstate mobility of educators by either

decreasing pension barriers or streamlining the qualifica-

tion requirements an educator must undergo in a new

State.2° By a strained reading of language heretofore

found insufficient to imply a-surrender of State sover-

eignty, federal courts can now be substituted as the final

arbiters of disputes involving core state functions, such as

education. See, e.g., Maine-New Hampshire School Dis-

trict Compact (providing for signatory States to “sue and

be sued” in controversies relating to interstate school

districts), N.H. Rev. Stat. ANN. § 200-F:1. Undeniably, the

exercise of federal judicial authority over such controver-

sies is anathema to the principles of federalism embodied

in the Eleventh Amendment. See Horowitz, 435 U.S. at 91

(“ ‘Judicial interposition in the operation of the public

school system of the Nation raises problems requiring

care and restraint.’ ”) (citation omitted). See also Milliken

v. Bradley, 418 U.S. 717, 741 (1974) (“No single tradition in

§§ 791-803 (2001); New Hampshire-Maine Sch. Dist. Compact,

N.H. Rev. Stat. ANN. § 200-F:1 (2000).

19 See, e.g., Midwestern Higher Educ. Compact, Kan. Star.

Ann. § 72-60b01--603 (2000); New England Higher Educ.

Compact, Conn. Gen. Stat. §§ 10a-61--64 (2001); Western Reg’l

Higher Educ. Compact, Nev. Rev. Stat. ANN. §§ 397.010--080

(2001).

20 See, e.g., Compact for Pension Portability for Educators,

R.I. Gen. Laws § 16-17.2-1 (2001); Agreement on Qualification of

Educ. Personnel, Ataska Star. §§ 14.20.620--650 (2001).

12

public education is more deeply rooted than local control

over the operation of schools... . ”).

The essential objective of all such compact arrange-

ments is to enable the several States to address common

issues on a regional or multistate basis. Under the Eighth

Circuit’s decision, no longer will the oversight and

enforcement of multistate agreements be confined to the

signatory States themselves. As part of this Court’s long-

standing vigilance in enforcing the appropriate role of the

federal courts in exercising jurisdiction over the sover-

eign States, the Court should review this case to provide

needed clarification regarding the circumstances in which

federal judicial authority may be exercised in the resolu-

tion of controversies arising under interstate compacts.

+

CONCLUSION

For the foregoing reasons, the State of Nebraska’s

petition for certiorari should be granted.

Respectfully submitted,

Of Counsel: Roy Coorer

CHARLES J. COOPER Attorney General

Davip H. THompson . of North Carolina

: Epwin M. Speas, Jr.*

Cooper & Kirk, PLLC ,

1500 K Street, N.W., Chief Deputy Attorney

Suite 200 bene Sree

Washington, D.C. 20005 epartment of Justice

P.O. Box 629

(202) 220-9600 Raleigh, NC 27602

(919) 716-6400

*Counsel of Record