New York v. New Jersey

Liberty protects individual rights—speech, religion, property, bodily autonomy, protection from searches and arbitrary detention—against government interference. This ruling addresses the structural relationship between states and their interstate agreements. No individual's personal rights are directly constrained or expanded by allowing New Jersey to withdraw from a waterfront commission compact. The decision operates at the inter-state level, not the individual-rights level.

Equality requires equal application of the same rule across similarly situated parties. This decision interprets the withdrawal rights available to a state under an interstate compact framework. It does not establish or alter a rule that applies differently to similarly situated individuals or groups, nor does it address whether two states in identical positions would be treated differently. The ruling is about the structural interpretation of compact law, not about equal treatment.

Consent of the governed traces democratic authorization from the electorate through elected representatives to enacted law. This ruling concerns the judicial interpretation of an existing interstate compact and whether a state may unilaterally withdraw. While the decision touches on state sovereignty—a federalism concept—it does not expand or restrict the electorate's participation in governance, strengthen legislative oversight, or restore a bypassed consent requirement. The decision is primarily a matter of contract interpretation and inter-state relations, not a distinctive mechanism affecting democratic authorization.

Limited and divided power protects federalism by ensuring states retain authority not delegated to the federal government. The decision upholds the principle that states are not subordinate to federal authority in their interstate compact arrangements and may withdraw from such compacts unless the compact text explicitly forbids it. This reinforces the structural separation between state and federal authority and confirms that states retain significant autonomy over their own agreements. The ruling aligns with the 10th Amendment's reservation of powers to the states and the foundational federalism principle that states are not mere administrative subdivisions of the federal government.

Rule of law requires due process, judicial review, legal transparency, and defined procedures for enforcement. The Court's decision provides a clear, judicially reviewable standard: states may withdraw from interstate compacts unless the compact text explicitly restricts withdrawal. This establishes a transparent rule that can be applied consistently and reviewed by courts. The decision does not rely on arbitrary discretion but on textual interpretation of the compact agreement, making the legal standard knowable and predictable. Judicial review of the compact's terms ensures that the rule is applied according to law, not executive whim.

Minority protection (6a and 6b) guards against majorities using legitimate government channels to substantively constrict a minority's structural footing—access to rights, participation, institutional standing, or sub-federal autonomy. This ruling concerns New Jersey's withdrawal from a waterfront compact, which is a bilateral or multi-state agreement, not a majoritarian imposition on a minority. The decision does not address whether a majority of states is using federal or compact power to restrict a minority state's autonomy, nor does it address individual minority rights. While the ruling affirms state autonomy (6b), it does so in a context where no identifiable minority is being constricted by a majority—rather, it addresses the general contractual freedom of a state. The decision is neutral on minority protection because it does not involve a majority-minority dynamic.