The Supreme Court appeared poised to allow New Jersey's request to exit a decades-old interstate agreement after New York objected to it leaving the interstate pact.

Known as the Waterfront Commission, it was established in the 1950s to combat corrupt labor practices and go after mobs at the New York-New Jersey container port. The agreement notably lacked any language about what happens if either side wants to exit the compact, which led to New Jersey's request for the high court justices to determine the best legal recourse.

JACKSON AND CONSERVATIVE JUSTICES FORM UNLIKELY ALLIANCE IN SUPREME COURT OPINIONS

Gov. Phil Murphy (D-NJ), dozens of state lawmakers, and a powerful union representing dock workers contend that the commission has outrun its usefulness, claiming the compact limits harbor business and has caused labor shortages. New York argues ending the compact would threaten a return to violence and instability around the port and threaten a new crisis on the U.S. supply chain, a position New Jersey says is based on outdated stereotypes.

While the compact lacks clarity about whether a state can unilaterally end the agreement, it does note a requirement for a joint agreement to amend the compact.

But justices on the 6-3 Republican-appointed high court appeared to lean more sympathetic to New Jersey's claims aside from some conflicting reservations addressed by the nine court members.

For example, liberal Justice Ketanji Brown Jackson speculated that perhaps the compact did not mention a specific termination date because states may have been "worried about signaling to the mob bosses that they would be leaving” and “not because they thought this was in an agreement for all times.”

But she juxtaposed her position in a separate comment, worrying that a ruling for New Jersey might have unintended consequences for future interstate agreements. Most states average around 25 interstate compacts, according to an amicus brief submitted in favor of New York's arguments.

“[The states] would understand that when you do a compact, and you don’t say anything express about termination, that you are sticking together until you jointly decide to end it," New York Deputy Solicitor General Judith Vale argued Wednesday.

But fellow liberal Justice Elena Kagan echoed Jackson's prior speculation, saying it's "a kind of weird thing to think that any state gives up its sovereignty forever" without any specific notice in the compact. Liberal Justice Sonia Sotomayor also said it "doesn't make any sense" to assume the Empire State can keep New Jersey locked into the compact.

Conservative Justice Amy Coney Barrett appeared to agree with the liberal justices about a lack of clarity on how the compact can be terminated.

Additionally, Justice Samuel Alito seemed sympathetic to the Garden State's position that it shouldn't permanently forfeit its sovereignty to police its borders. “Shouldn’t there be a presumption against a state having done that?” he said.

CLICK HERE TO READ MORE FROM THE WASHINGTON EXAMINER

President Joe Biden's Justice Department supported New Jersey's position, arguing in its amicus brief that "the Compact establishes a framework that enables either party effectively to veto the Commission’s ongoing operations. That framework suggests that the parties also enjoy the more direct power to withdraw."

An opinion in the case, New York v. New Jersey, will most likely be handed down this summer, ahead of the high court's recess in early July.