Compacts Are Not Uniform Laws Because of Their Contractual Nature
An interstate compact is not a “uniform law” as that term is typically construed and applied. Unlike interstate compacts, uniform laws are not contracts, a state adopting an interstate compact cannot pick and choose which provisions of an interstate compact to adopt, and a state cannot adapt the provisions of an interstate compact to address solely intra-state concerns. Also, unlike uniform laws, once adopted, a state cannot unilaterally amend or repeal an interstate compact unless the language of the compact authorizes such an act, and even then, states may only amend or repeal the compact in accordance with the terms of the compact. See, e.g., West Virginia ex rel. Dyer v. Sims, 341 U.S. 22, 30-32 (1951). The terms and conditions of the states’ agreement define the obligations of each member state and the effect a compact may have on individual state law. For example, in Nebraska v. Central Interstate Low-Level Radioactive Waste Commission, the court held that Nebraska did not have the unilateral right to exercise a veto over actions of an interstate commission created by a compact. 207 F.3d 1021, 1026 (8th Cir. 2000). Similarly, in C.T. Hellmuth & Assocs., Inc. v. Wash. Metro. Area Transit Auth., 414 F. Supp. 408, 409 (D. Md. 1976), the court held that, “Further, when enacted, a compact constitutes not only law, but a contract which may not be amended, modified, or otherwise altered without the consent of all parties. It, therefore, appears settled that one party may not enact legislation which would impose burdens upon the compact absent the concurrence of the other signatories.”
Where states retain authority to unilaterally alter a reciprocal agreement, the agreement will generally not rise to the level of a compact enforceable as a contract between the states. Ne. Bancorp v. Bd. of Governors of Fed. Reserve Sys., 472 U.S. 159, 175 (1985). No state can act in conflict with the terms of the compact as the compact defines the members’ multilateral obligations. See, e.g., U.S. Trust Co. v. New Jersey, 431 U.S. 1 (1977) (contract clause applied to state’s obligation to bondholders in connection with interstate compact); Wroblewski v. Commonwealth, 809 A.2d 247 (Pa. 2002) (terms of an interstate compact contain the substantive obligations of the parties as is the case with all contracts; Contracts Clause of the Federal Constitution protects compacts from impairment by the states; although a state cannot be bound by a compact to which it has not consented, an interstate compact supersedes prior statutes of signatory states and takes precedence over subsequent statutes of signatory states). Compacts stand as probably the only exception to the general rule that a sitting state legislature cannot irrevocably bind future state legislatures. See Michael L. Buenger, Jeffrey B. Litwak, Michael H. McCabe & Richard L. Masters, The Evolving Law and Use of Interstate Compacts 35-43 (2016).
Therefore, compacts have standing as both binding state law and as a contract between the member states. A state law that contradicts or conflicts with a compact is unenforceable, absent some reserve of power to the member states. See McComb v. Wambaugh, 934 F.2d 474, 479 (3d Cir. 1991) (“Having entered into a contract, a participant state may not unilaterally change its terms. A compact also takes precedence over statutory law in member states.”). The terms of the compact take precedence over state law even to the extent that a compact can trump a provision of a state’s constitution. See, e.g., Wash. Metro. Area Transit Auth. v. One Parcel of Land, 706 F.2d 1312, 1319 (4th Cir. 1983) (explaining that the WMATA’s “quick take” condemnation powers under the compact are superior to the Maryland Constitution’s prohibition on “quick take” condemnations).