Waterfront Commission of NY v. Governor of New Jersey
961 F.3d 234
| 3rd Cir. | 2020Background
- New Jersey and New York created the Waterfront Commission of New York Harbor by reciprocal 1953 statutes (the Waterfront Commission Compact) to reform waterfront hiring and fund the Commission largely by employer assessments.
- Over time most port activity shifted to New Jersey; New Jersey legislators concluded the Commission overregulated and impaired port growth.
- At the end of Governor Christie’s term New Jersey enacted Chapter 324 (2018), repealing the State’s enabling statute, directing the Governor to notify Congress/NY/Commission of withdrawal, triggering a 90‑day dissolution, and redirecting former Commission assessments and funds to New Jersey’s treasury and the State Police.
- The Waterfront Commission sued New Jersey Governor Murphy in federal court seeking declaratory and injunctive relief invalidating Chapter 324 and preventing withdrawal; the District Court denied dismissal, enjoined enforcement, and granted the Commission summary judgment.
- On appeal the Third Circuit held that the suit was barred by state sovereign immunity because the relief sought would operate against New Jersey (divert state treasury funds and compel contractual performance of the Compact), so Ex parte Young did not permit suit against the Governor; the case was remanded for dismissal.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether Ex parte Young allows suit against NJ Governor to block Chapter 324 | Commission: suit seeks prospective relief against an official to prevent violation of federal law/Compact; Governor has ministerial duty to notify, so Ex parte Young applies | Governor/Legislature: relief would effectively be against the State; sovereign immunity bars jurisdiction; Governor’s duties not specific enough for Ex parte Young | Held: Ex parte Young inapplicable — New Jersey is the real, substantial party in interest; sovereign immunity deprives court of jurisdiction |
| Whether the requested relief would operate against the State’s treasury | Commission: relief is prospective and aimed at preserving Commission’s funding mechanism, not an award of damages | Governor: invalidation of Chapter 324 would redirect revenues back to Commission and deprive State treasury; operates against State | Held: Relief would expend or divert public funds to the Commission and therefore operate against the State |
| Whether relief would amount to specific performance of the Compact | Commission: seeks only to prevent unlawful withdrawal and preserve Compact enforcement | Governor: invalidation would compel New Jersey to continue performing under the Compact (specific performance) | Held: The requested relief would effectively require State to continue contractual performance—specific performance barred by sovereign immunity |
| Whether New Jersey waived immunity or Congress abrogated it | Commission: Compact and federal interests permit federal jurisdiction | Governor/Legislature: No waiver by New Jersey and no congressional abrogation of immunity | Held: No waiver or abrogation shown; sovereign immunity stands |
Key Cases Cited
- Ex parte Young, 209 U.S. 123 (1908) (authorizes prospective suits against state officials for ongoing violations of federal law but is a narrow fiction)
- Pennhurst State School & Hospital v. Halderman, 465 U.S. 89 (1984) (doctrine limiting Ex parte Young when relief is effectively against the State)
- Va. Office for Prot. & Advocacy v. Stewart, 563 U.S. 247 (2011) (Ex parte Young does not apply when state is real, substantial party in interest)
- Edelman v. Jordan, 415 U.S. 651 (1974) (prospective equitable relief vs. state and limits when relief requires payment from state treasury)
- Franchise Tax Bd. of Cal. v. Hyatt, 139 S. Ct. 1485 (2019) (discussion of state sovereign immunity’s historical foundations)
- PennEast Pipeline Co. v. New Jersey, 938 F.3d 96 (3d Cir. 2019) (jurisdictional review principles on immunity issues)
- Tarrant Reg’l Water Dist. v. Herrmann, 569 U.S. 614 (2013) (interstate compacts analyzed as contracts)
- Idaho v. Coeur d’Alene Tribe of Idaho, 521 U.S. 261 (1997) (relief that quiets title/affects state control of territory is effectively against the State)