Galette v. New Jersey Transit Corp. · ¶63

It is true, as Lake Country explained, that this Court has allowed entities to invoke sovereign immunity “in order to protect the state treasury from liability that would have had essentially the same practical consequences as a judgment against the State itself.” 440 U. S., at 401. That statement, however, relied on cases concerning whether a State was the real party in interest in a particular lawsuit. Ibid., and n. 18 (citing Edelman, 415 U. S. 651; and Ford Motor Co. v. De partment of Treasury of Ind., 323 U. S. 459 (1945)). As discussed above, that is a separate question from whether an entity is the arm of the State. See supra, at 527–528. On that question, Lake Country's arm-of-the-State analysis discussed only whether the Compact “expressly provide[d] that obligations of [the entity] shall not be binding on either State.” 440 U. S., at 402 (emphasis deleted).

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