Article XIV.B specifies, “Upon the request of a party to a conflict over meaning or interpretation of Interstate Commission actions, and upon a majority vote of the Compacting States, the Interstate Commission may issue advisory opinions regarding such meaning or interpretation.” Advisory opinions are drafted by the Executive Director with the assistance of counsel and approved by the Commission. They are intended to be lasting opinions, but several have been made obsolete by the enactment or clarification of rules addressing the same subjects of those opinions. In Sconce v. California, No. CV 14-2447-ODW(JC), 2017 WL 10573725, *7–8 (C.D. Cal. June 13, 2017), the court concluded that the petitioner could not seek an order from the court compelling the interstate commission to issue an advisory opinion where the order “would not resolve a case or controversy, but would merely determine a collateral legal issue for an aspect of a future petition going to whether the [receiving state] acted within its jurisdiction when it convicted and sentenced petitioner for violating his probation.”
This is an important authority that reduces conflict between the party states and enables the interstate commission to quickly address an issue outside of the rulemaking process, which occurs only annually. The interstate commission has issued more than three dozen advisory opinions and updates them as necessary to reflect amendments to rules or practice. Many courts have cited and followed the advisory opinions as persuasive authority, and occasionally a court encourages a state to seek an advisory opinion. E.g., State v. Brown, 140 A.3d 768, 779 n.8 (R.I. 2016). Other cases that have cited to the interstate commission’s advisory opinions include, Tobey v. Chibucos, Nos. 16-3927, 16-4037, 2018 U.S. App. LEXIS 12576 at *39 n.9 (7th Cir. May 15, 2018); Goe v. Comm’r of Prob., 46 N.E.3d 997, 1005 (Mass. 2016), Voerding v. Mahoney, No. CV 09-73-H-DWM-RKS, 2010 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 32059, at *5 (D. Mont. Apr. 1, 2010); In re Paul, No. A-3905-08T2, 2010 N.J. Super. Unpub. LEXIS 1729, at *9 (N.J. Super. Ct. App. Div. Apr. 10, 2010); Perry v. State, No. 05-1757, 2008 U.S. Dist. LEXS 121014 (W.D. Pa. June 2, 2008).
Additionally, the interstate commission has issued several white papers. White papers are formal guidance documents that clarify legal authority, explain rule application, and address recurring compliance issues under the compact. While not rules, white papers provide authoritative interpretation and are intended to support consistent understanding and implementation of ICAOS requirements across member states.