Page:Alabama v. North Carolina, 560 U.S. (2010) slip opinion.pdf/24

20

We have never held that an interstate compact approved by Congress includes an implied duty of good faith and fair dealing. Of course "[e]very contract imposes upon each party a duty of good faith and fair dealing in its performance and enforcement." Restatement §205. But an interstate compact is not just a contract; it is a federal statute enacted by Congress. If courts were authorized to add a fairness requirement to the implementation of federal statutes, judges would be potent lawmakers in­deed. We do not—we cannot—add provisions to a federal statute. See, e.g., ''Connecticut Nat. Bank v. Germain'', 503 U. S. 249, 254 (1992). And in that regard a statute which is a valid interstate compact is no different. Texas v. New Mexico, 462 U. S., at 564, 565. We are especially reluctant to read absent terms into an interstate compact given the federalism and separation-of-powers concerns that would arise were we to rewrite an agreement among sovereign States, to which the political branches consented. As we have said before, we will not "'order relief inconsistent with [the] express terms'" of a compact, "no matter what the equities of the circumstances might otherwise invite." New Jersey v. New York, 523 U. S., at 811 (quoting Texas v. New Mexico, supra, at 564).

The Compact imposes no limitation on North Carolina's exercise of its statutory right to withdraw. Under Article 7(G), which governed North Carolina's withdrawal, "any party [S]tate may withdraw from the compact by enacting a law repealing the compact." 99 Stat. 1879. There is no restriction upon a party State's enactment of such a law,