New Jersey’s lengthy historical past of trouncing New York on the Supreme Court docket

I used to be born and raised in New Jersey, and I dwell there now (not off of any exit, thanks very a lot). And, though I resided within the Large Apple for a few years, I’ll at all times be a Jersey boy. Even essentially the most passionate New Jerseyan, nevertheless, could also be unaware of the lengthy historical past of authorized battles between their residence state and New York, several of which have taken place earlier than the Supreme Court docket. On this article, I discover an important of those instances and what, precisely, might be realized from New York’s bullying of its kindly neighbor.  

1831: Who owns what, half I

New Jersey and New York first got here to the Supreme Court docket practically two centuries in the past. This authorized dispute was a very long time coming. Following the onset of British rule in 1664, the Province of New Jersey was initially acknowledged as a definite territory in a land grant from the Duke of York to 2 of his shut confidantes. In carving out the states’ respective boundaries, New Jersey’s area was described as “westward of Lengthy Island, and [Manhattan] Island and … half by Hudson’s river.” Sadly, nobody had the foggiest concept what “half by Hudson’s river” meant.

In 1829, having been unable to settle their border disputes via political means, New Jersey submitted a legal bill in opposition to New York “for the aim of ascertaining and settling the boundary between the 2 states,” and it subpoenaed the Empire State’s governor and lawyer basic.

New York had no explicit curiosity in enjoying good, nevertheless: These officers refused to reply the subpoena, forcing New Jersey to try to implement it in courtroom. As a result of the Supreme Court docket has original jurisdiction over disputes between the states, this case went on to the justices.

Chief Justice John Marshall himself delivered the opinion of the court. Marshall first acknowledged that New Jersey had correctly served its subpoena. He then decided that, as a result of New York had failed to reply, its neighbor may proceed with its case ex parte, or with out New York’s presence. Marshall bluntly warned that if New York nonetheless refused to behave after being served with a replica of an order stating that New Jersey had a proper to have its case go ahead even with out New York, the courtroom would “proceed to a ultimate listening to” relating to New Jersey’s territorial claims “and a choice thereof.”

Seemingly spurred by the courtroom’s resolution, the states reached an agreement over their boundary traces in 1833 (which was ratified by Congress the next yr). New Jersey subsequently dropped its go well with, apparently assuming (incorrectly) that New York could possibly be trusted.

1921: The sewage case [insert Jersey joke]

Remarkably, the 2 states had no different fights earlier than the Supreme Court docket for practically a century. However because the Roaring Twenties started, this détente got here to an in depth over one thing slimy. Particularly, New York claimed that New Jersey had been releasing noxious sewage into New York Harbor, making a public nuisance that resulted in “grave harm to the well being, to the property, and to the business welfare of the folks of the State and Metropolis of New York.”

Admittedly, that sounds fairly unhealthy. However in a unanimous opinion by Justice John Hessin Clarke, the courtroom uncovered the flimsiness of New York’s claims. Particularly, Clarke identified that: (1) New Jersey had entered right into a compact agreeing to mitigate the sewage’s environmental harms, and (2) New York had didn’t reveal that this settlement was proving insufficient. Or, within the beautiful phrases of the courtroom: “Contemplating all of this proof … we should conclude that the complainants have failed to indicate by the convincing proof which the legislation requires that the sewage which the defendants intend to discharge into Higher New York Bay … would so corrupt the water of the bay as to create a public nuisance.”

Ultimately, Clarke suggested the events to do what (presumably) New York ought to have executed within the first place: try to work issues out.

1931: Diverting water

The following Supreme Court docket battle between New York and New Jersey came about solely a decade later. And right here, it was New Jersey who (rightly) claimed to have been wronged.

The difficulty started a number of years earlier, when New York sought to increase the water provide to New York Metropolis. To take action, the Empire State proposed to divert massive quantities of water from tributaries of the Delaware River. Unsurprisingly, this not solely affected the circulation of the “Lifeblood of the Northeast,” however doubtlessly altered the water provide to New Jersey residents. New Jersey (naturally) demanded that New York chorus from taking such measures, New York (predictably) thought in any other case, and off to courtroom they went.  

In a unanimous decision, Justice Oliver Wendell Holmes tried to separate the distinction. First, Holmes allowed New York to proceed with its plan, though he restricted the quantity of water that it may divert. Second, Holmes made this transfer topic to a number of circumstances, together with that New York arrange a sewage therapy plant. Lastly, Holmes gave New Jersey (and Pennsylvania, which had additionally joined the case) the fitting to examine the related dams, reservoirs, and different buildings in order to ensure New York was not diverting water past its allotted quantity. (New Jersey graciously agreed to extend the quantity of water that New York may divert in a 1954 consent decree.) 

The underside line: Whereas not an entire victory for New Jersey, the courtroom a minimum of acknowledged that New York couldn’t be trusted to police itself.

1998: Who owns what, half II

Close to the tip of the final millennium, New Jersey and New York engaged in maybe their most fraught authorized battle: the rumble over Ellis Island. And though Jersey was not granted the Statue of Liberty (which, to be honest, was not in play), this spherical resulted in a powerful victory for the Backyard State.  

Earlier than attending to the great things, nevertheless, let’s backtrack slightly. As described earlier, at New Jersey’s inception, its border with New York was poorly outlined. This modified in 1833, when the 2 states agreed upon a boundary line set in the midst of the Hudson River. Concerned in these negotiations was the standing of Ellis Island, which lies within the Hudson River between the 2 states. Particularly, the states agreed that New York would preserve jurisdiction over the island, and New Jersey would have sovereignty over the land surrounding it.

Though New York had jurisdiction over Ellis Island, the state had already conveyed ownership of it to the federal authorities in 1808 for a whopping $10,000 ($256,387.30 in the present day!). On Jan. 1, 1892, the U.S. authorities started utilizing the island as an immigration station, and because the circulation of immigrants dramatically expanded, so did the necessity for extra land. Accordingly, the feds engaged in a sequence of in depth land reclamation tasks, finally growing the dimensions of the island to round 27 acres.

On Nov. 12, 1954, Ellis Island ceased working as an immigration facility (having served as a detention and deportation center from the Nineteen Thirties onward). That led to a squabble between New York and New Jersey over who, precisely, owned all of that additional land stuffed in by the U.S. authorities – now comprising roughly 83% of the island.

Following years of hostilities, New Jersey lastly took the initiative, and in 1993 asked the Supreme Court docket to settle this query. The case first went earlier than a particular grasp, as authentic jurisdiction instances typically do, finally touchdown on the courtroom’s docket within the 1997-98 time period.

In a 6-3 decision written by Justice David Souter, the bulk held that New Jersey had jurisdiction over the artificially created land round Ellis Island. (Disappointingly, the one justice from New Jersey on the time, Antonin Scalia, dissented.) In accordance with Souter, New York had already conceded “that on the time of the [1833 agreement] the submerged land across the Island was beneath the sovereign authority” of the Backyard State; for the reason that reclaimed land was constructed upon that, New Jersey thus naturally held sovereignty over that land as properly. The upshot: New Jersey would obtain some small gross sales tax income and management over attainable improvement plans for the island … on the discretion of the federal authorities.

Unsurprisingly, each states had one thing to say in regards to the courtroom’s resolution. Then-New Jersey Gov. Christine Todd Whitman celebrated it, remarking that the courtroom had supplied a “formal recognition of New Jersey’s half in historical past,” and that the opinion mirrored the state’s “great [immigrant] custom.”

Characteristically for New York, Rudolph Giuliani – then the mayor of New York Metropolis –  decried the choice as “fix[ed],” and complained that his grandfather certainly didn’t consider himself as emigrating to New Jersey. As the youngsters say, too unhealthy, so unhappy.

2023: The Empire (State) strikes again

It might be arduous to consider that New York may ever get better from its humiliating defeat with regard to Ellis Island. But when there’s one factor the Empire State might be relied on for, it’s failing to be taught from its previous errors. So it was that, solely two years in the past, New York marched as soon as extra into the hollowed halls of One First Road.

This newest authorized battle was the product of the Mafia. Within the Nineteen Fifties, New Jersey and New York had sought to handle a scourge on their shared waterfront: labor racketeering. To take action, they’d signed a contract in 1953 establishing the Waterfront Commission of New York Harbor, which served as a bistate police company set as much as examine and fight organized crime.  

Over the next many years, the presence of organized crime waned considerably on the waterfront. In response, New Jersey decided that its assets can be higher spent elsewhere than on the fee, and, in 2018, it passed legislation to exit the 1953 settlement. In a transfer spectacular in its brazenness, New York claimed that New Jersey couldn’t “unilaterally withdraw” from this contract.

In a unanimous opinion consisting of a mere 9 pages, the courtroom discovered in any other case. Justice Brett Kavanaugh defined that the states’ settlement had solely contemplated efficiency for an “indefinite time,” which was greatest understood as being “terminable on the will of both get together.” However this wasn’t all: in keeping with Kavanaugh, the very concept of state sovereignty “assist[ed] New Jersey’s place,” which New York was (as soon as once more) trying to repudiate.  As SCOTUSblog’s personal Ronald Mann said at the time, “[o]ccasionally – not all that always, however typically – the Supreme Court docket faces a very easy case with an apparent reply. New York v New Jersey [was] a type of instances.”

Conclusion

So what can we conclude from all this? First, sure state stereotypes – a minimum of regarding sewage, landfills, and arranged crime – could have some reality to them. Second, it is vital for neighbors to have contracts – even when a type of neighbors frequently stretches these to the breaking level. And eventually, typically the nice man actually does win  – sewage, landfills, organized crime, and all.