U.S. Code » Title 48 » Chapter CHAPTER 18— MICRONESIA, MARSHALL ISLANDS, AND PALAU › Subchapter SUBCHAPTER IV— MICRONESIA, MARSHALL ISLANDS, AND PALAU: 2023 AGREEMENTS

48 U.S.C. § 1983

Approval of 2023 Agreement to Amend the U.S.-FSM Compact, 2023 Agreement to Amend the U.S.-RMI Compact, 2023 U.S.-Palau Compact Review Agreement, and Subsidiary Agreements

Read at: OLRCuscode.house.gov CornellLII GovInfogovinfo.gov JustiaTitle 48 CasesGoogle Scholar
(a) Federated States of Micronesia(1) Approval

The 2023 Agreement to Amend the U.S.-FSM Compact and the 2023 U.S.-FSM Trust Fund Agreement, as submitted to Congress on June 15, 2023, are approved and incorporated by reference.

(2) Consent of CongressCongress consents to—(A) the 2023 U.S.-FSM Fiscal Procedures Agreement, as submitted to Congress on June 15, 2023; and(B) the 2023 U.S.-FSM Federal Programs and Services Agreement.(3) Authority of President

Notwithstanding section 1921(f) of this title, the President is authorized to bring into force and implement the agreements described in paragraphs (1) and (2).

(b) Republic of the Marshall Islands(1) Approval

The 2023 Agreement to Amend the U.S.-RMI Compact and the 2023 U.S.-RMI Trust Fund Agreement, as submitted to Congress on October 17, 2023, are approved and incorporated by reference.

(2) Consent of Congress

Congress consents to the 2023 U.S.-RMI Fiscal Procedures Agreement, as submitted to Congress on October 17, 2023.

(3) Authority of President

Notwithstanding section 1921(f) of this title, the President is authorized to bring into force and implement the agreements described in paragraphs (1) and (2).

(c) Republic of Palau(1) Approval

The 2023 U.S.-Palau Compact Review Agreement, as submitted to Congress on June 15, 2023, is approved.

(2) Authority of President

The President is authorized to bring into force and implement the 2023 U.S.-Palau Compact Review Agreement.

(d) Amendments, changes, or termination to Compacts and certain agreements(1) In general

Any amendment to, change to, or termination of all or any part of the 2023 Amended U.S.-FSM Compact, 2023 Amended U.S.-RMI Compact, or the U.S.-Palau Compact, by mutual agreement or unilateral action of the Government of the United States, shall not enter into force until the date on which Congress has incorporated the applicable amendment, change, or termination into an Act of Congress.

(2) Additional actions and agreementsIn addition to the Compacts described in paragraph (1), the requirements of that paragraph shall apply to—(A) any action of the Government of the United States under the 2023 Amended U.S.-FSM Compact, 2023 Amended U.S.-RMI Compact, or U.S.-Palau Compact, including an action taken pursuant to section 431, 441, or 442 of the 2023 Amended U.S.-FSM Compact, 2023 Amended U.S.-RMI Compact, or U.S.-Palau Compact; and(B) any amendment to, change to, or termination of—(i) the agreement described in section 462(a)(2) of the 2023 Amended U.S.-FSM Compact;(ii) the agreement described in section 462(a)(5) of the 2023 Amended U.S.-RMI Compact;(iii) an agreement concluded pursuant to section 265 of the 2023 Amended U.S.-FSM Compact;(iv) an agreement concluded pursuant to section 265 of the 2023 Amended U.S.-RMI Compact;(v) an agreement concluded pursuant to section 177 of the 2023 Amended U.S.-RMI Compact;(vi) Articles III and IV of the agreement described in section 462(b)(6) of the 2023 Amended U.S.-FSM Compact;(vii) Articles III, IV, and X of the agreement described in section 462(b)(6) of the 2023 Amended U.S.-RMI Compact;(viii) the agreement described in section 462(h) of the U.S.-Palau Compact; and(ix) Articles VI, XV, and XVII of the agreement described in section 462(b)(7) of the 2023 Amended U.S.-FSM Compact and 2023 Amended U.S.-RMI Compact and section 462(i) of the U.S.-Palau Compact.(e) Entry into force of future amendments to subsidiary agreements(1) In generalAn agreement between the United States and the Government of the Federated States of Micronesia, the Government of the Republic of the Marshall Islands, or the Government of the Republic of Palau that would amend, change, or terminate any subsidiary agreement or portion of a subsidiary agreement (other than an amendment to, change to, or termination of an agreement described in subsection (d)) shall not enter into force until the date that is 90 days after the date on which the President has transmitted to the President of the Senate and the Speaker of the House of Representatives—(A) the agreement to amend, change, or terminate the subsidiary agreement;(B) an explanation of the amendment, change, or termination;(C) a description of the reasons for the amendment, change, or termination; and(D) in the case of an agreement that would amend, change, or terminate any agreement described in section 462(b)(3) of the 2023 Amended U.S.-FSM Compact or the 2023 Amended U.S.-RMI Compact, a statement by the Secretary of Labor that describes—(i) the necessity of the amendment, change, or termination; and(ii) any impacts of the amendment, change, or termination.(2) Federal programs and services agreement with the republic of Palau

Subparagraphs (A) and (D)(iii) of section 1931(c)(2) of this title and subsection (d)(2)(A) shall not apply to an agreement that would amend, change, or terminate the agreement described in section 462(f) of the U.S.-Palau Compact.

(Pub. L. 118–42, div. G, title II, § 204, Mar. 9, 2024, 138 Stat. 423; Pub. L. 118–83, div. B, title I, § 110(b)(1), Sept. 26, 2024, 138 Stat. 1536.)Editorial NotesCodification

Section is comprised of section 204 of title II of div. G of Pub. L. 118–42. Subsecs. (a)(1) and (b)(1) of section 204 of title II of div. G of Pub. L. 118–42, insofar as they incorporate the 2023 Agreement to Amend the U.S.-FSM Compact and the 2023 Agreement to Amend the U.S.-RMI Compact, are also classified as amendments to sections 201(a) and 201(b), respectively, of Pub. L. 108–188, which are set out as notes under section 1921 of this title.

Amendments

2024—Subsec. (e). Pub. L. 118–83 designated existing provisions as par. (1) and inserted heading, redesignated former pars. (1) to (4) as subpars. (A) to (D), respectively, of par. (1), redesignated former subpars. (A) and (B) of par. (4) as cls. (i) and (ii), respectively, of par. (1)(D), realigned margins, and added par. (2).

Notes of Decisions
Cited in 50 cases (21 in the last 5 years), 1993–2026 · leading case: Watton v. Hegerty, 2008 WI 74 (Wis. 2008).
Sort: Relevance Newest Treatment
Watton v. Hegerty, 2008 WI 74 (Wis. 2008). · cites it 2× “Watton requested Gray's statements of emergency detention in the course of investigating whether to file suit on his clients' behalf against the City of Milwaukee Police Department under 48 U.S.C. § 1983 . Gray had been in and out of custody in the month leading up to Moore's…”
Carrie Sama v. Edward Hannigan, 669 F.3d 585 (5th Cir. 2012). “OWEN, Circuit Judge: Carrie Rahat Sama, who was incarcerated in the custody of the Texas Department of Criminal Justice–Correctional Institutions Division (TDCJ–CID), sought damages under 48 U.S.C. § 1983 . She asserted that her constitutional rights were violated when her ovary…”
Kurtz v. Verizon New York, Inc., 758 F.3d 506 (2d Cir. 2014). “) The complaint alleged several causes of action under 48 U.S.C. § 1983 for wrongful taking of plaintiffs’ property without just compensation and for violation of their associated due process rights.”
Madiwale v. Savaiko, 117 F.3d 1321 (11th Cir. 1997). “§ 242 , the criminal counterpart to 48 U.S.C. § 1983 . The Court in Lanier made clear that suits proceeding under both statutes make use of the exact same inquiry in order to determine whether, in the light of pre-existing law, the unlawfulness of an official’s action is…”
Andre Coleman v. Todd Tollefson, 733 F.3d 175 (6th Cir. 2013). “Coleman-Bey, pro se, filed a complaint in the Western District of Michigan alleging claims under 48 U.S.C. § 1983 against six workers at the Baraga Correctional Facility.”
Hines v. Irvington Counseling Ctr., 933 F. Supp. 382 (D.N.J. 1996). “See 48 U.S.C. § 1983 ; Pl’s Compl. Therefore, because sovereign immunity applies to all the Federal defendants, Plaintiff Hines may not sustain a suit against either the SSA itself or the SSA employees sued in their official capacity, and his complaint should be dismissed under…”
Art & Drama Therapy Inst., Inc. v. Dist. of Columbia, 110 F. Supp. 3d 162 (D.D.C. 2015). “Count IV alleges a violation of 48 U.S.C. § 1983 for, among other things, the infringement of Plaintiffs’ due process rights under the Fifth Amendment as a *168 result of “inaccurate or improper unreliable evidence manufacture [sic ] by District employees who were improperly…”
Arkansas Dep't of Human Servs. v. Heath, 848 S.W.2d 927 (Ark. 1993). “Davis complained that the infliction by state officials of a “stigma” to one’s reputation was an infliction of harm actionable under 48 U.S.C.S. § 1983 and the Fourteenth Amendment.”
Noghrey v. Town of Brookhaven, 92 A.D.3d 851 (N.Y. App. Div. 2012). “Accordingly, so much of the ninth and twelfth causes of action of the amended complaint as alleged a partial regulatory taking of the property known as Liberty Plaza without just compensation pursuant to 48 USC § 1983 are severed, and the matter is remitted to the Supreme Court,…”
Copple v. Astrella & Rice, P.C., 442 F. Supp. 2d 829 (N.D. Cal. 2006). “extensively researched the issue of what was required to state a valid claim for relief, under the circumstances of apparent improper collusion here presented, pursuant to 48 U.S.C. § 1983 . That research led me to the following legal opinions .”
Vazquez Martinez v. New York City Support Collection Enf't Unit, 255 F. Supp. 2d 4 (D.P.R. 2003). “Accordingly, he is seeking in-junctive relief and monetary damages as permitted under 48 U.S.C. § 1983 . Defendants seek dismissal of all claims based on five arguments: 1) the Court lacks personal jurisdiction over the Defendants because of improper service of process; 2)…”
Butler Ex Rel. Butler v. Rio Rancho Pub. Sch. Dist., 33 F. App'x 982 (10th Cir. 2002). “On April 27, 2001, the Butlers filed a complaint against the School pursuant to 48 U.S.C. § 1983 , alleging violations of Joshua’s constitutional right to due process, violations of the Fourth Amendment, conspiracy, and various claims under the New Mexico Tort Claims Act.”
Show all 50 citing cases →
Annotations are extracted automatically from the opinions in the Syfert caselaw corpus and ranked by authority, recency, and treatment. Dots show Syfertize treatment of the citing case itself.