Access to Justice

Galette v. New Jersey Transit Corp. and New Jersey Transit Corp. v. Colt

In Galette v. New Jersey Transit Corporation and New Jersey Transit Corporation v. Colt, the Supreme Court is considering whether state-affiliated corporations have sovereign immunity.

Case Summary

Under our constitutional system, states like New Jersey have sovereign immunity, which protects them from being sued unless they have agreed to it. But states can create corporations that are distinct from the state to carry out public functions like transportation. Buses operated by one such entity, the New Jersey Transit Corporation (NJTC), struck and injured people in New York and Pennsylvania. When defending against suits to recover damages, the NJTC insisted that it was immune from suit as an arm of the State of New Jersey. The Court of Appeals of New York disagreed, while the Supreme Court of Pennsylvania agreed that the NJTC was immune. The United States Supreme Court agreed to review both decisions.

In November 2025, CAC filed an amicus brief explaining that the NJTC lacks sovereign immunity and can be sued for injuries it causes.

State sovereign immunity derives from the traditional immunity held by governments at the time of the Constitution’s ratification. And under English common law at that time, corporations like the NJTC were considered legal entities distinct from the sovereign, which could sue and be sued, regardless of whether they served a public purpose. As a wealth of scholarly treatises and judicial decisions makes clear, the common law inextricably associated the capacity to sue and be sued with corporate status. Accordingly, even corporate entities associated with the monarch, like the East India Company, the Bank of England, and others, were routinely sued in the decades preceding ratification of the Constitution.

The American Framers embraced the English rule that state-affiliated corporations could be haled into court. As Chief Justice John Marshall recognized, American “ideas of a corporation, its privileges and its disabilities,” were “derived entirely from the English books.” Throughout the federal and state constitutional conventions, participants consistently distinguished corporations from true sovereigns like the states. Precisely because the states were not corporations, it was understood that states would retain their sovereignty and be immune from suit without their consent.

It was also understood, however, that state-affiliated corporations, unlike the states themselves, were amenable to suit. In the early decades of the new nation, the Supreme Court regularly exercised jurisdiction over these corporations, such as state-created and state-controlled banks. The Court was clear that “public corporations,” i.e., those “founded by the government, for public purposes,” could be sued just like any others. These cases demonstrate that corporations like the NJTC traditionally lacked the sovereign immunity of the states that created them.

Accordingly, the Supreme Court should hold that the NJTC can be held accountable in court for the injuries it causes.

Case Timeline

More from Access to Justice

Access to Justice
U.S. Supreme Court

Flowers Foods v. Brock

In Flowers Foods v. Brock, the Supreme Court is considering whether the Federal Arbitration Act exempts from arbitration “last-mile” delivery drivers who transport goods between two points in the same state to their final destinations,...
Access to Justice
U.S. Supreme Court

T.M. v. University of Maryland Medical System

In T.M. v. University of Maryland Medical System, the Supreme Court is considering whether the Rooker-Feldman doctrine requires dismissal of a request for relief from a state-court decision that did not reach the state’s highest...
Access to Justice
January 14, 2026

CAC Release: Supreme Court Justices Pose Difficult Questions to State-Affiliated Corporation that Claims Immunity from Suit

WASHINGTON, DC – Following oral argument at the Supreme Court this morning in Galette v....
By: Brian R. Frazelle, Harith Khawaja
Access to Justice
October 6, 2025

RELEASE: Supreme Court Considers the Scope of a Defendant’s Sixth Amendment Right to Counsel

WASHINGTON, DC – Following oral argument at the Supreme Court this morning in Villarreal v....
Access to Justice
June 12, 2025

CAC Release: In a Narrow, Unanimous Decision, Supreme Court Gives Victims of Wrong-House Raid Another Chance to Hold the Government Accountable

WASHINGTON, DC – Following today’s decision at the Supreme Court in Martin v. United States,...
Access to Justice
U.S. Supreme Court

Villarreal v. Texas

In Villarreal v. Texas, the Supreme Court is considering whether a defendant’s constitutional right to assistance of counsel is violated by a court order prohibiting the defendant and his counsel from discussing the defendant’s testimony...