New Jersey v. New York
Headline: Court awards New Jersey sovereignty over Ellis Island landfill added after 1834, bars New York from enforcing laws there, while confirming New York’s control of the original 1834 island and pier.
Holding: The Court decreed that New Jersey is sovereign over Ellis Island areas added by landfill after 1834 and enjoined New York from enforcing laws there, while New York keeps sovereignty over the original 1834 island and pier.
- Gives New Jersey control over landfill sections of Ellis Island added after 1834.
- Leaves New York in charge of the original 1834 island and pier area.
- Requires the States to split Special Master fees and related expenses equally.
Summary
Background
The dispute was between the State of New Jersey and the State of New York over who controls parts of Ellis Island. The States litigated in the Supreme Court under its original role for state-versus-state cases. A Special Master held an evidentiary proceeding, filed reports, and the Court considered those reports and the States’ exceptions before issuing this Decree.
Reasoning
The Court resolved which parts of Ellis Island belong to which State by applying the Compact of 1834 that both States enacted and Congress approved. The Decree grants New Jersey sovereignty over portions of Ellis Island that were created by landfill after 1834. The Court also confirms that New York remains sovereign over the original island as it existed in 1834, extending to the low-water mark and including the pier area shown on an 1857 United States Coast Survey map. The precise boundary is fixed by reference to the Compact and by a detailed map dated December 1, 1998, appended to the Decree.
Real world impact
Practically, New Jersey will have authority over the landfill-added parts of Ellis Island and New York will continue to exercise authority over the original 1834 land and pier. New York is enjoined from asserting laws or sovereignty over the areas within New Jersey’s established boundary. The Court retained jurisdiction to enter further orders if needed to enforce this Decree. The States were ordered to split equally the Special Master’s fees and expenses related to the litigation.
Ask about this case
Ask questions about the entire case, including all opinions (majority, concurrences, dissents).
What was the Court's main decision and reasoning?
How did the dissenting opinions differ from the majority?
What are the practical implications of this ruling?