| New Jersey v. New York | |
|---|---|
 | |
| Original jurisdiction Argued January 12, 1998 Decided May 26, 1998 | |
| Full case name | State of New Jersey v. State of New York |
| Citations | 523 U.S. 767 (more) 118 S. Ct. 1726; 140 L. Ed. 2d 993; 1998 U.S. LEXIS 3405; 66 U.S.L.W. 4389; 98 Daily Journal DAR 5406; 1998 Colo. J. C.A.R. 2596; 11 Fla. L. Weekly Fed. S 563 |
| Outcome | |
| New Jersey has sovereign authority over the filled land added to the original Island. New Jersey's exception to that portion of the Special Master's report concerning the Court's authority to adjust the original boundary line between the two States is sustained. The other exceptions of New Jersey and New York are overruled. | |
| Court membership | |
| |
| Case opinions | |
| Majority | Souter, joined by Rehnquist, O'Connor, Kennedy, Ginsburg, Breyer |
| Concurrence | Breyer, joined by Ginsburg |
| Dissent | Stevens |
| Dissent | Scalia, joined by Thomas |
| Laws applied | |
| 1834 Compact between New York and New Jersey | |
New Jersey v. New York, 523 U.S. 767 (1998), was a U.S. Supreme Court case that determined that roughly 83% of Ellis Island was part of New Jersey, rather than New York State.
Because the New Jersey original 1664 land grant was unclear, the states of New Jersey and New York disputed ownership and jurisdiction over the Hudson River and its islands. The two states entered into a compact ratified by Congress in 1834, which set a boundary line to be the middle of the Hudson River, but giving all islands in the river (including Ellis Island) to New York. From 1890 to 1934, the federal government expanded Ellis Island through land reclamation to accommodate its immigration station. Starting in the 1980s, New Jersey contended that the new portions of the Ellis Island were part of New Jersey. New Jersey filed suit in 1997.
In a 6–3 decision, the Supreme Court ruled that because the 1834 compact gave New Jersey jurisdiction over submerged land around Ellis Island, the new land was in New Jersey, not New York.[1] While the ruling changed little in practice (Ellis Island is federal land), it did affect the allocation of sales tax revenue and future development plans for the island.[1]