While the Supreme Court considers that the interests of States that are not parties to an intergovernmental covenant constitute an important investigation into whether the intergovernmental covenant is contrary to the covenant clause, these interests have not yet proved to be a factor in proliferation. In US Steel Corp. v. Multistate Tax Commission, the Tribunal held that an intergovernmental pact to facilitate the collection and allocation of public taxes was not contrary to the compact clause.  The Court has indicated that the effect of a covenant on non-condensed states would not be problematic under the covenant clause, unless the pact put pressure on non-condensed states that violated the trade clause or the privilege and immunity clause.  At Northeast Bancorp. v. The Board of Governors told the court that congressional approval would be needed for a pact that would increase the political power of state compression “to the detriment” of non-compact states.   Id. at 23-24. The U.S.
Supreme Court often proposes that parties to state lawsuits address conflicts through intergovernmental pacts, not litigation. Id. at 24 years old. The date of approval by Congress is not set in the Constitution, so approval can be given either before or after the approval of a given pact by the states. Consent can be explicit, but can also be inferred from the circumstances. Congress may also impose conditions as part of its approval of a pact.  Congress must expressly approve any pact that would increase the political power of the states in a way that would interfere with the power of the federal government. .