Page:Alabama v. North Carolina, 560 U.S. (2010) slip opinion.pdf/11

Rh

the parties engaged in partial discovery and subsequently filed cross-motions for summary judgment. The Special Master’s Second Report recommended denying Plaintiffs’ motion for summary judgment on Count II, Second Report 8–35, and granting North Carolina’s motion for summary judgment on Count II, id., at 35–40. Finally, he recom­mended denying North Carolina’s motion for summary judgment on Plaintiffs’ remaining claims in Counts III–V. Id., at 41–45.

Plaintiffs present a total of seven exceptions to the Special Master’s two reports. We address them in turn.

Their first exception challenges the Special Master’s conclusion that the Commission lacked authority to im­pose monetary sanctions upon North Carolina. The terms of the Compact determine that question.

Article 4(E) of the Compact sets forth the Commission’s “duties and powers.” Among its powers are the authority “[t]o revoke the membership of a party [S]tate that will­ fully creates barriers to the siting of a needed regional facility,” Art. 4(E)(7), 99 Stat. 1875, and the authority “[t]o revoke the membership of a party [S]tate in accordance with Article 7(f),” Art. 4(E)(11), ibid. Conspicuously ab­sent from Article 4, however, is any mention of the author­ity to impose monetary sanctions. Plaintiffs contend that authority may be found elsewhere—in the first paragraph of Article 7(F), which provides in relevant part:

“Any party [S]tate which fails to comply with the provisions of this compact or to fulfill the obligations incurred by becoming a party [S]tate to this compact may be subject to sanctions by the Commission, in­cluding suspension of its rights under this compact and revocation of its status as a party [S]tate.” Id., at