On January 14, 2026, the United States Supreme Court heard argument in Galette v. New Jersey Transit Corporation (consolidated with Colt v. NJ Transit), a case addressing whether a state-created corporation qualifies as an “arm of the state” entitled to interstate sovereign immunity under the Eleventh Amendment.
Representing the appellee, Brian J. Shoot, a member of Sullivan Papain Block McManus Coffinas & Cannavo since 1994, had successfully prevailed at every level of the New York state courts. He was assisted in the Supreme Court phase of the case by the Stanford Law School Supreme Court Advocacy Clinic.
NJ Transit operates buses across state lines, including in New York. The issue before the Court is whether, after operating freely in another jurisdiction, it may invoke sovereign immunity to avoid answering there for alleged wrongdoing. The Court granted certiorari to resolve a split between New York and Pennsylvania courts over whether NJ Transit may claim immunity from suit in another state’s courts.
During oral argument, the Justices explored the tension between corporate structure and sovereign dignity. Justice Ketanji Brown Jackson questioned whether NJ Transit was attempting to “have their cake and eat it too” — enjoying the operational and commercial benefits of corporate status while claiming the constitutional protections reserved for the state itself.
Mr. Shoot framed the stakes this way:
“What this case is about [is that the] New Jersey Transit Corporation, a corporation which the state has chosen to make, finds no indignity in coming to New York City and injuring someone… However, it does deem it a knock on its dignity to have to come to New York City and answer for what it’s done.”
He continued:
“In a sense, the case is about the rights of the individual against that of the corporation… whether the individual still has any rights.”
The case sits within a broader development of sovereign immunity jurisprudence over the past decade. As Mr. Shoot observed:
“Ten years ago, states had no constitutional right to evade process in another state’s courts. With a swing of the constitution of the Courts — not the Constitution of the United States, but the constitution of the Courts — that has changed.”
The Supreme Court’s decision will clarify how courts determine “arm-of-the-state” status and whether operational autonomy and interstate activity limit claims of immunity.
Mr. Shoot has argued hundreds of cases in appellate courts throughout New York and focuses his practice on complex litigation involving catastrophic injury and wrongful death. The appearance before the Supreme Court reflects the firm’s longstanding appellate experience and commitment to ensuring that individuals retain meaningful access to the courts when harmed by powerful entities.
A decision in Galette is expected by summer 2026.