[1] In some cases, an agreement will create a new multi-state governmental agency which is responsible for administering or improving some shared resource such as a seaport or public transportation infrastructure.
Alternatively, member states to a compact may opt for cooperation with a single independent non-profit organization which carries out designated tasks without government funding.
[4][5] The CRS report cites the Supreme Court's rulings in Florida v. Georgia (1855) and in Texas v. New Mexico and Colorado (2018) as recognizing that explicit congressional consent is also required for interstate compacts that alter the horizontal balance of power amongst state governments.
[6] Citing Metropolitan Washington Airports Authority v. Citizens for Abatement of Aircraft Noise, Inc. (1991) as stating that if an enumerated power under the Constitution is legislative, then "Congress must exercise it in conformity with the bicameralism and presentment requirements of Article I, Section VII", and noting that the Republican River Compact was initially vetoed by President Franklin D. Roosevelt in 1942, the CRS report states that if an interstate compact requires explicit congressional approval, it must be approved by both houses of Congress and signed into law by the President in order to become law.
[8][9] The CRS report cites the Court's opinions in Virginia v. Tennessee and Northeast Bancorp v. Federal Reserve Board of Governors (1985) as stating that any agreement between two or more states that "cover[s] all stipulations affecting the conduct or claims of the parties", prohibits members from "modify[ing] or repeal[ing] [the agreement] unilaterally", and requires "'reciprocation' of mutual obligations" constitutes an interstate compact.