New Jersey v. New York
1998 U.S. LEXIS 3405, 140 L. Ed. 2d 993, 523 U.S. 767 (1998)
Premium Feature
Subscribe to Lexplug to listen to the Case Podcast.
Rule of Law:
Under the common law doctrine of avulsion, sovereignty over artificial landfill created in a state's territorial waters belongs to that state, not to a neighboring state that holds sovereignty over the original, natural land to which the fill is attached.
Facts:
- In 1834, New York and New Jersey entered into a compact setting their boundary in the middle of the Hudson River but granting New York sovereignty over several islands on New Jersey's side, including the then-three-acre Ellis Island.
- After 1891, the United States federal government began operating Ellis Island as an immigration station.
- Over the next 42 years, the federal government dramatically increased the island's size by adding approximately 24.5 acres of artificial landfill using submerged land in New Jersey's waters.
- The federal government constructed numerous facilities, including hospitals for contagious diseases, on this newly created landfill.
- After the immigration station closed in 1954, both New York and New Jersey asserted competing claims of sovereignty over the filled portions of the island for purposes of taxation, zoning, and general legal jurisdiction.
- The competing claims of sovereignty created uncertainty that hindered proposals for the island's private or public redevelopment.
Procedural Posture:
- In 1993, the State of New Jersey invoked the U.S. Supreme Court's original jurisdiction by seeking leave to file a bill of complaint against the State of New York.
- The Supreme Court granted New Jersey's petition and appointed a Special Master to manage the case.
- The Special Master denied cross-motions for summary judgment and conducted a trial.
- The Special Master submitted a final report recommending that the Court declare New Jersey sovereign over the filled portions of Ellis Island.
- The Special Master also recommended, for practical reasons, adjusting the boundary to keep the main immigration building entirely within New York.
- Both New York and New Jersey filed exceptions to the Special Master's report, bringing the matter before the Supreme Court for final adjudication.
Premium Content
Subscribe to Lexplug to view the complete brief
You're viewing a preview with Rule of Law, Facts, and Procedural Posture
Issue:
Does the 1834 Compact between New York and New Jersey, which grants New York sovereignty over the original Ellis Island, also grant New York sovereignty over the artificial landfill added to the island after the Compact was signed?
Opinions:
Majority - Justice Souter
No, the 1834 Compact does not grant New York sovereignty over the later-added landfill. The Compact was silent on the issue of future additions to the island, so the common law doctrine of avulsion controls. Under this doctrine, a sudden change to a shoreline, such as the addition of artificial fill, does not change the boundary; therefore, sovereignty over the new land belongs to the owner of the underlying submerged land, which was New Jersey. New York's alternative claim to sovereignty by prescription fails because its acts of jurisdiction over the filled land were too sporadic, equivocal, and inconsistent to establish a long, continuous, and open assertion of sovereignty to which New Jersey could be said to have knowingly acquiesced. The federal government's exclusive occupation of the island further limited both New York's ability to perform sovereign acts and New Jersey's notice of such acts.
Dissenting - Justice Stevens
Yes, New York acquired sovereignty over the entire island by prescription. For over 60 years, all interested parties—including federal officials, immigrants, and island residents—acted under the shared belief that the entire island was part of New York. Evidence such as federal census data, voter registration, birth and death certificates, and the provision of municipal services by New York overwhelmingly demonstrates a long, continuous, and notorious exercise of sovereignty. Given the public nature of these activities, New Jersey's acquiescence should be inferred, establishing New York's claim by prescription.
Dissenting - Justice Scalia
Yes, New York should have sovereignty over the entire island, not by prescription but by interpreting the Compact itself. The 1834 Compact is ambiguous regarding artificial additions to the island. When a contract is ambiguous, the subsequent conduct of the parties is the best evidence of its meaning. For decades, New York, New Jersey, and the United States all acted as if the entire island belonged to New York, and this practical construction should resolve the Compact's ambiguity in New York's favor.
Concurring - Justice Breyer
No, the filled portion of the island belongs to New Jersey. The Compact is not ambiguous on the relevant point; it is silent. This silence means the background common law rule of avulsion applies, giving the filled land to New Jersey. Furthermore, New York's prescription claim fails because it is unreasonable to expect New Jersey to have mounted a major protest against New York's modest assertions of sovereignty over territory that was, for all practical purposes, under the exclusive control of the Federal Government.
Analysis:
This decision solidifies the application of the common law doctrine of avulsion to interstate boundary disputes involving artificial land changes. It establishes that sovereignty over such land defaults to the state owning the underlying submerged territory unless a compact explicitly states otherwise. The ruling also reinforces the high evidentiary burden for a state to claim territory via prescription, requiring clear, continuous, and notorious acts of sovereignty that provide unambiguous notice to the competing state. The case serves as a caution that long-standing popular belief or administrative practice may not overcome established legal principles of property and sovereignty, particularly in the unique context of a federal enclave.
