New Jersey v. New York

1998-05-26

Headline: Court finds New Jersey, not New York, sovereign over land added by landfill to Ellis Island, shifting control of taxes, zoning, and local laws on the filled portions to New Jersey.

Holding: The Court held that New Jersey, not New York, has sovereign authority over the portions of Ellis Island created by landfill, applying the common-law avulsion rule and rejecting New York’s prescription and compact arguments.

Real World Impact:

Gives New Jersey authority over taxes, zoning, and local laws on the filled portions of Ellis Island.
Changes which state's courts and laws apply to accidents and lawsuits on the filled land.
Leaves the original island area under New York's recognized sovereign control.

Topics: state borders, Ellis Island, landfill and land ownership, taxes and zoning, interstate dispute

Summary

Background

New Jersey brought this original-jurisdiction suit asking which State controls the land that was added by landfill to Ellis Island after the 1834 compact. The compact had recognized New York's authority over the small original island, but from 1891 to 1934 the United States filled surrounding submerged lands, increasing Ellis Island by about 24.5 acres. A Special Master held a trial and issued recommendations that the Court reviewed.

Reasoning

The central question was whether the added land became part of New York or stayed part of New Jersey. The Court applied the common-law rule for avulsion (sudden changes by filling) and found the compact silent on changing that rule. The Court held that those filled areas remained New Jersey’s sovereign property. It rejected New York’s arguments under the compact, and rejected New York’s claim of gaining sovereignty by long prescriptive acts and by laches, finding the federal occupation and sporadic New York acts insufficient to give New Jersey notice and therefore insufficient to transfer sovereignty.

Real world impact

As a result, New Jersey gains sovereign authority over the filled portions of Ellis Island for matters like taxation, zoning, environmental rules, elections, and most state civil and criminal law. The Court did not decide the full scope of federal legislative jurisdiction or every administrative detail; it remanded to the Special Master to prepare a decree consistent with the ruling and refused to redraw the compact line for mere convenience.

Dissents or concurrances

Justice Breyer (joined by Ginsburg) agreed with the judgment and emphasized the avulsion rule and federal occupation. Justices Stevens and Scalia dissented, arguing the historical record showed long practice and acquiescence supporting New York’s claim.