United States Trust Co. v. New Jersey
431 U.S. 1 (1977)
Premium Feature
Subscribe to Lexplug to listen to the Case Podcast.
Rule of Law:
A state's retroactive repeal of its own statutory financial obligation is an unconstitutional impairment of contract unless the repeal is both reasonable and necessary to serve an important public purpose. When a state modifies its own contracts, courts will not defer to legislative judgment on reasonableness and necessity due to the state's self-interest.
Facts:
- The Port Authority of New York and New Jersey was created in 1921 as a financially independent public entity funded primarily by bonds sold to private investors.
- To enhance investor confidence for bonds needed to finance the World Trade Center and acquire a commuter railroad, New York and New Jersey enacted a statutory covenant in 1962.
- The 1962 covenant explicitly promised bondholders that the Port Authority would not use its revenues or reserves, which secured the bonds, to fund deficit-producing railroad projects beyond a strictly defined formula.
- Between 1962 and 1974, the Port Authority issued over a billion dollars in Consolidated Bonds to the public, with the covenant serving as a key security provision.
- By the early 1970s, facing an energy crisis and increasing environmental concerns, the states determined that the covenant was an obstacle to funding needed mass transit improvements.
- In 1974, the legislatures of both New Jersey and New York passed statutes that retroactively repealed the 1962 covenant for all bondholders, including those who had purchased bonds in reliance on it.
Procedural Posture:
- United States Trust Company of New York sued the State of New Jersey in the Superior Court of New Jersey (a trial court), seeking a declaratory judgment that the 1974 repeal was unconstitutional.
- The Superior Court dismissed the complaint, ruling the repeal was a reasonable exercise of the state's police power.
- The Trust Company, as appellant, appealed directly to the Supreme Court of New Jersey (the state's highest court).
- The Supreme Court of New Jersey affirmed the trial court's decision, upholding the repeal.
- The United States Supreme Court noted probable jurisdiction to hear the appeal from the Trust Company.
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 retroactive repeal by New Jersey and New York of their 1962 statutory covenant, which limited the use of Port Authority revenues for subsidizing deficit rail transit, violate the Contract Clause of the U.S. Constitution?
Opinions:
Majority - Justice Blackmun
Yes, the retroactive repeal of the 1962 covenant violates the Contract Clause. An impairment of a state's own financial obligation is constitutional only if it is reasonable and necessary to serve an important public purpose. When a state's self-interest is at stake, complete deference to a legislative assessment of reasonableness and necessity is not appropriate. The repeal was not necessary because less drastic modifications to the covenant or alternative funding sources for mass transit were available. The repeal was not reasonable because the need for mass transit was a long-standing issue, well known when the covenant was adopted; the changed circumstances of the 1970s energy crisis were of degree, not of kind, and did not make the covenant's effect unforeseeable.
Dissenting - Justice Brennan
No, the retroactive repeal does not violate the Contract Clause. This decision revives a discarded interpretation of the Contract Clause to improperly oversee state policy. A state's police power to legislate for the health, safety, and welfare of its citizens is paramount to private contract rights and cannot be contracted away. The repeal served vital public interests in transportation, energy, and the environment, which were spurred by new societal demands and federal laws passed after 1962. The actual financial impairment to bondholders was minimal, as the bonds remained highly rated and the Port Authority's financial position was stronger than ever, posing no threat to the repayment of principal or interest.
Concurring - Chief Justice Burger
Yes, the repeal violates the Contract Clause. To repeal the covenant constitutionally, the State must demonstrate that the impairment was essential to achieving an important state purpose and that it could not have known the contract's impact on that interest when the contract was made. The state failed to meet this high burden.
Analysis:
This decision marked a significant reinvigoration of the Contract Clause, which had been interpreted narrowly for decades. It established a heightened standard of review for when a state impairs its own financial contracts, as opposed to contracts between private parties. By requiring that the impairment be not only reasonable but also necessary, the Court limited a state's ability to escape past financial commitments simply by declaring a new public policy priority. The ruling provided greater security to investors in municipal bonds by signaling that a state's solemn financial promises would be judicially enforced against subsequent legislative changes of heart.
Unlock the full brief for United States Trust Co. v. New Jersey