The Supreme Court case between the State of Alabama and others versus the State of North Carolina in 2009 revolved around a dispute over an interstate compact, specifically regarding low-level radioactive waste. The Southeast Interstate Low-Level Radioactive Waste Management Compact was created to manage such waste across multiple states. However, North Carolina withdrew from the agreement after receiving $80 million for a disposal facility that it never built. Other member states including Alabama sued for breach of contract and good faith obligations, seeking sanctions against North Carolina. The Supreme Court ruled in favor of North Carolina stating that while they did not condone its actions, there were no explicit terms within the compact requiring a state to build or open a facility by any specific date or face penalties if it chose to withdraw from the compact without doing so.

In the dissenting opinion for the case of State of Alabama, et al., v. State of North Carolina, 2009, Justice Breyer argued that the majority's decision to reject sanctions against North Carolina was incorrect. He contended that North Carolina had violated a good-faith obligation by failing to meet its responsibilities under an interstate compact regarding radioactive waste disposal. According to him, this failure resulted in financial harm to other states involved in the compact and thus warranted penalties. Furthermore, he disagreed with the majority's interpretation of what constituted "appropriate" sanctions as outlined by Congress within said compact agreement; instead arguing for a broader understanding which would include monetary damages or specific performance orders as potential punitive measures.