All Advisory Opinions At-A-Glance

An undocumented immigrant who meets the definition of “Juvenile” under Article II (H) of the Compact and ICJ Rule 1-101, and seeks to transfer under the Compact and ICJ Rules, is subject to the jurisdiction of the Compact.  While such person’s status as an “undocumented” immigrant would not necessarily disqualify an immigrant from transferring under the Compact, the applicable rules may result in the denial of a transfer due to the inability of the immigrant to meet the criteria of the Compact in a given case. 

Based upon the referenced provisions of the U.S. Constitution and decisions of the U.S. Supreme Court, in the absence of the Consent of Congress for tribes to enter into agreement with the states as members of the Interstate Compact for Juveniles, no such authority exists under which the provisions of the compact or its rules can regulate transfers of juveniles to and from sovereign tribal nations or reservation lands.

Using these well accepted rules of statutory interpretation, it is clear that because the ICJ rules do not include a special definition of the terms “same standards . . . that prevail for its own juveniles. . .” the ordinary meaning of those terms leads to the inevitable conclusion that as the supervising State, Pennsylvania is thus permitted, under Rule 5-101(1), to impose ‘graduated sanctions’ upon any juvenile transferred under the compact if such standards are also applied to its own delinquent juveniles.

As in most states counties are specifically classified and recognized as political subdivisions of the State of Idaho.See for example Bonneville County v. Ysursa, 129 P.3d 1213 (Id. 2005); also Sanchez v. State Department of Corrections, 141 P.3d 1108 (Id. 2006) which unequivocally recognize that a county is a political subdivision of the State. As a consequence the above ICJ provisions and authority apply equally and coextensively to all Idaho counties as political subdivisions. Thus, the failure of a county to comply with the provisions of the ICJ and its duly authorized rules is tantamount to a violation by the State of Idaho and a default in its obligations under the compact and authorized rules.

Regarding the first issue, a review of Art. III, Sec. C. of the compact statute indicates the clear intent to provide for participation in Commission meetings by ‘non-commissioners’ but to limit such participation by classifying those persons as “ex-officio (non-voting)” members.   Implicit in such a classification is the inference that those who are not eligible to vote should not be entitled to make motions which require a vote which they are prohibited from casting.  Based on this provision of the ICJ, while participation in Commission meetings including providing comments and opinions during debate are permitted, that ‘ex-officio members of the commission are neither eligible to vote nor make motions at Commission meetings.  

With respect to the second issue, as has previously been discussed in Advisory Opinion 1-2009, the procedure described in Art. III, Section G. of the ICJ provides “for the temporary appointment of another authorized representative to represent and vote on behalf of a state at a specific ICJ meeting in the absence of the commissioner.  It is clear that as long as the ‘substitute’ or ‘proxy’ has been appointed by the commissioner in consultation with the state council as required by this section, by definition such person has the authority to both make motions and to vote at ICJ Commission meetings.  

Using this analysis, the determination of whether an appointment of a commissioner is bona fide under the above referenced provisions of the Interstate Compact will depend upon establishing whether adequate documentation has been furnished to establish the ‘appropriate appointing authority’ has acted with respect to the appointment of the commissioner for that state.  This can be demonstrated by such items as a gubernatorial executive order or letter of appointment, a statutory provision which clearly delegates such authority to another state official and proof that the official to who receives such delegated power has in fact issued an appointment letter to the proponent seeking recognition as a commissioner. 

The above described procedure for the general appointment of a commissioner to act on behalf of a compact state under Article III, Section B. is a distinctly different process than the process which the compact provides in Article III, Section G. for the temporary appointment of another  authorized representative to represent and vote on behalf of a state at a specific ICJ meeting in the absence of the commissioner.  This temporary appointment for a specific meeting does not require the action by the ‘appropriate appointing authority’ and under the compact may be accomplished by action of the commissioner in consultation with the state council.