Party State, Interstate Commission, and Third-Party Enforcement of Compacts
Claims for breach of a compact typically involve one party state filing an action against another party state in the U.S. Supreme Court under the Court’s original jurisdiction in Article III, § 2 of the U.S. Constitution and 28 U.S.C. § 1251(a). See, e.g., Texas v. New Mexico, 462 U.S. 554 (1983). However, an interstate commission may join a party state as a plaintiff in an original jurisdiction action provided that it makes the same claims and seeks the same relief or its claims are wholly derivative of the plaintiff states’ claims. Alabama v. North Carolina, 560 U.S. 330, 354–57 (2010).
Some compacts authorize the interstate commission to seek judicial action to enforce the compact against a party state. See, e.g., Interstate Compact for Adult Offender Supervision, art. XII, § C; Interstate Comm’n for Adult Offender Supervision v. Tennessee Bd. of Prob. & Parole, No. 04-526-KSF (E.D. Ky. June 13, 2005) (permanent injunction). The ICJ, art. XI, sec. C, contains a similar enforcement provision as the Interstate Compact for Adult Offender Supervision.
Many cases also involve third-parties seeking to enforce a compact, but the issue of third-party enforcement of a compact does not often arise. While courts do not always analyze compacts for implied enforcement by third parties, the most recent cases from at least two U.S. Courts of Appeals, construing the Interstate Compact for Adult Offender Supervision (ICAOS) have held that where there is no indication from the text and structure of a statute that Congress intended to create new individual rights, there is no basis for a private suit, whether under § 1983 or under an implied right of action. See, e.g., Doe v. Pa. Bd. of Prob. & Parole, 513 F.3d 95, 103 (3d Cir. 2008) (third-party may not enforce a compact (ICAOS) where the compact does not expressly provide a private right of action); M.F. v. N.Y. Exec. Dep’t Div. of Parole, 640 F.3d 491, 495 (2d Cir. 2011).
PRACTICE NOTE:
Courts do not always analyze compacts for implied enforcement by third-parties, which suggests that parties and courts generally recognize third parties’ actions, unless there is good reason to believe that third parties may not bring actions. However, recent case law has clarified that absent language showing an intent to create individual rights, they will not be implied.