Galette v. New Jersey Transit Corp. · ¶35

Finally, in Hess v. Port Authority Trans-Hudson Corpora tion, 513 U. S. 30 (1994), the Court again found that a bistate entity created under the Compact Clause was not an arm of the State. It explained that the Authority was described in the compact and state laws as a “ `joint or common agency,' ” a “ `body corporate and politic,' ” and a “ `municipal corporate instrumentality' ” of New York and New Jersey. Id., at 44–45. Financially, the States were not liable for the Authority's debts or judgments; the Authority was barred from pledging the credit of either State or from borrowing money in any name but its own; and the entity generated its own revenue. Id., at 46. The Court acknowledged that the States exerted significant control over the Authority—they had appointment and removal power over the commissioners, the Governors could veto the Authority's actions, and the States'…

preliminary print (page proof)
Source edition
Passage preview. Read in context for the complete text, notes and references.