Arm of State: Not

The Supreme Court late last month provided further clarification about the implications of the "arms of the state" sovereign immunity doctrine under the 11th amendment in other circumstances.  Northern Insurance Company of NY v. Chatham County, Georgia involved a suit in admiralty by an insurance company that sought damages in connection with the collision between an insured boat and a county drawbridge that was alleged to have malfunctioned. The county asserted immunity from suit in admiralty, arguing that it possessed "residual immunity" for purposes of admiralty law, even though it could not have asserted immunity under the "arm of the state" immunity doctrine for purposes of 11th amendment sovereign immunity analysis. 

In an opinion by Justice Thomas, the unanimous court held that: an entity that does not qualify as an “arm of the State” for Eleventh Amendment purposes cannot assert sovereign immunity as a defense to an admiralty suit.  He reasoned that sovereign immunity from federal actions results from sovereignty that pre-existed ratificaiton of the Constitution and that related principles regarding "arms of the state" should apply in admiralty actions as well.  The Court also rejected the county's alternative argument that a distinct sovereign immunity doctrine should bar in personam admiralty suits in cases arising from the county's exercise of core state functions relating to navigable waters.