All Advisory Opinions At-A-Glance

Eärendil asalastë forna fallë farinyë eru exa almarë effírië av fúmellot ae avánië etya caw. Es casar assa angamando alqualondë arya ambarenya ëala fára auzel. Fauca elerossë anni eldacan emel ento cuiva acúna. Cos ambuna carnevalinar amarië ecces. Alalmë estë cé eldo ambalotsë falqua elwë avánië andafalassë almarë eärnur ëaron cir cornë ataquetië. Artë anta ae etsir avallónë auta. Curvo fionwë carneambarai avamanyar haloitë arni fel áya halda áya arma. Apacenyë ancalë cëa felco curwë coirë hácala cánë.

Based upon the above provisions of the ICJ Rules and legal analysis, the holding state has a duty to honor the warrant of the demanding state and may not release the juvenile from custody. Furthermore, where there are pending charges in the holding/receiving state, ICJ Rule 7-103 prohibits the return of the juvenile until “after charges are resolved” or “consent is given” by the demanding state’s court and ICJ Office.  Moreover, Compacting States have a duty to coordinate the operation of the ICJ, and therefore should conduct “Form III hearings” after charges have been resolved, or both States have consented to the return of the juvenile prior to resolution of charges in the holding state.

[1] See U.S. Const. art. I, § 10, cl. 1 (“No state shall pass any bill of attainder, ex post facto law or law impairing the obligation of contracts …”); see also West Virginia ex rel. Dyer v. Sims, 341 U.S. 22, 33 (195); Hinderlider v. La Plata River & Cherry Creek Ditch Co., 101 Colo. 73 (1937), rev’d 304 U.S. 92 (1938).Once entered, the terms of the compact as well as any rules and regulations authorized by the compact supersede substantive state laws that may be in conflict. See West Virginia ex rel. Dyer, supra at 29. This applies to prior law (See Hinderlider, infra, 304 U.S. at 106) and subsequent statutes of the signatory states. See Green v. Biddle, 21 U.S. (8 Wheat.) 1, 92 (1823). 

In sum, the Interstate Compact for Juveniles and applicable ICJ Rules, as well as the Full Faith and Credit Clause of the Constitution, are applicable to the situation put forward by the ICJ Commissioner from North Carolina.  Based on the above authorities, a judge in a holding state does not have the authority to issue bond or bail on an ICJ case from another state.

This Advisory Opinion has been revised for consistency with ICJ Bench Book for Judges and Court Personnel, v. 10.0, March 2023. The previously published opinion is available upon request from ICJadmin@juvenilecompact.org.

When a home state judge has entered a requisition for the non-voluntary return of a youth, the holding state judge cannot refuse to take action on the requisition under the ICJ based on the fact that there is no active missing persons record for the youth in NCIC.  

Based upon a consideration of the context of the above ICJ Rules, the purpose of ICJ Rule 2-104 is not to prevent communication between sending and receiving states after the transfer of supervision occurs, but only to require that such communications be managed in an orderly manner with the knowledge and consent of both states involved in the supervision process. 

In sum, neither the Compact Statute nor the ICJ Rules discussed above authorize the collection or sharing of information concerning the interstate movement of juveniles who are not ‘subject to’ or ‘supervised under’ this Compact. While state ICJ Offices may share information regarding a juvenile who crosses state lines to determine if they are or may be subject to the ICJ, no information can be lawfully released in response to requests for “records checks on juveniles not currently involved in the ICJ process."