When a state-affiliated corporation injures someone, it should be liable for remedying that injury just like any other corporation. Yet New Jersey Transit Corporation claims to be immune from accountability in other states’ courts when it injures those states’ residents within those states’ borders. This argument faced significant skepticism at the Court this morning. As numerous Justices seemed to appreciate, the choice by a state like New Jersey to reap the benefits of creating a separate corporation to carry out functions like public transportation brings certain tradeoffs, one of which is that the corporation can be sued in another state’s court for its misconduct in that state. Sovereign immunity protects New Jersey, not the corporations it creates.

For centuries, corporate status has been synonymous with suability. That rule developed under the English common law, and Founding-era judges adopted it in the new Republic. For decades following the ratification of the Constitution, the Supreme Court applied this clear rule to adjudicate cases against state-created corporate banks. As multiple Justices, including Justice Ketanji Brown Jackson, recognized during today’s argument, this history means that there should be no presumption that the New Jersey Transit Corporation is entitled to sovereign immunity. That is the correct outcome in this case, and one which permits the plaintiffs to recover for their injuries.