On January 14, 2026, the United States Supreme Court heard oral argument in Galette v. New Jersey Transit Corporation (consolidated with Colt v. NJ Transit). The case addressed a critical constitutional question: 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 2002, 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.
The Legal Dispute
NJ Transit operates buses across state lines, including in New York and Pennsylvania. The core issue before the Court was whether a state entity, after operating freely in another jurisdiction, may invoke sovereign immunity to avoid answering for alleged wrongdoing in that jurisdiction’s courts. The Court granted certiorari to resolve a split between New York and Pennsylvania courts over whether NJ Transit could claim such immunity.
The Result: A Unanimous Rejection of Immunity
In a landmark ruling, the U.S. Supreme Court delivered a major win for plaintiffs, unanimously rejecting the sovereign immunity defense that has derailed numerous injury cases before they could be adjudicated on the merits. The Court rejected NJ Transit’s claim that it was an “arm of the State,” holding instead that it is a legally separate, state-created corporation that must answer for its own negligence. The decision establishes that when a State elects to operate through a corporate form, grants that entity the authority to “sue and be sued,” and does not make itself legally liable for the entity’s judgments, immunity generally will not apply.
Impact of the Decision
The ruling clarifies the national standard governing when quasi-public agencies—such as transit authorities and public benefit corporations—can invoke sovereign immunity. For litigants and the judicial system, the impact is profound:
Merit-Based Resolutions: More cases will now proceed past threshold immunity challenges rather than being dismissed at the outset.
Accountability: Public corporations will no longer be permitted to invoke a State’s “dignity” while simultaneously disclaiming the State’s fiscal responsibility.
Legal Consequences: The Court made it clear that a State’s choice to create a separate juridical entity carries inherent legal consequences.
A Legacy of Appellate Excellence
Mr. Shoot, who has argued hundreds of cases in appellate courts throughout New York, focuses his practice on complex litigation involving catastrophic injury and wrongful death. This victory reflects the firm’s longstanding appellate experience and unwavering commitment to ensuring that individuals retain meaningful access to the courts when harmed by powerful entities.
As Mr. Shoot observed during the litigation, the “constitution of the Courts” has shifted back toward protecting the rights of the individual. This decision ensures those rights remain intact when facing state-created corporations.