Supreme Court rules NJ Transit can’t hide behind state immunity

Court strips NJ Transit of legal shield

The U.S. Supreme Court ruled 9-0 on March 4 that NJ Transit cannot use New Jersey’s sovereign immunity to dodge lawsuits filed in other states. Justice Sonia Sotomayor wrote the opinion.

The decision means people hurt by NJ Transit vehicles outside New Jersey can now sue the agency wherever the accident happened.

The ruling also settles a split between New York and Pennsylvania’s highest courts, which had reached opposite answers on the same question.

Sovereign immunity kept states from outside lawsuits

Sovereign immunity is a legal rule that says one state’s government can’t be sued in another state’s courts unless it agrees.

The idea dates back to the founding of the country and exists to protect state treasuries from outside judges.

The big question here: Does NJ Transit, a corporation New Jersey created to run buses and trains, count as part of the state?

If it did, people hurt by its vehicles in other states would have had no way to sue where they live.

Two bus crashes put the rule to the test

Two accidents set the whole thing in motion. In 2017, Jeffrey Colt was crossing a street in Midtown Manhattan when an NJ Transit bus hit him and knocked him down.

A year later, Cedric Galette was riding in a car on Market Street in Philadelphia when an NJ Transit bus crashed into it. Both men were seriously hurt and sued in their home states.

NJ Transit asked both courts to toss the cases, claiming New Jersey’s sovereign immunity protected the agency.

Injured riders can now sue where accidents happen

Here’s what this means for regular people. If a state-run transit vehicle hurts you outside that agency’s home state, you can file your lawsuit where the accident took place.

Before this ruling, the answer depended on geography. New York allowed it.

Pennsylvania blocked it. The decision doesn’t find NJ Transit guilty of anything, though.

The injured men still have to prove the agency was at fault. NJ Transit is the third-largest transit system in the country, covering over 5,300 square miles.

New York and Pennsylvania reached opposite answers

The New York Court of Appeals ruled NJ Transit was not an arm of the state and let Colt’s lawsuit move forward. Pennsylvania’s Supreme Court went the other way and threw out Galette’s case.

So NJ Transit’s legal responsibility came down to which state border the accident crossed.

That kind of split is exactly what the U.S. Supreme Court steps in to fix, and the justices took the case to create one clear answer.

Justices weighed three parts of NJ Transit’s structure

The Court looked at three things. First, New Jersey set up NJ Transit as a legally separate corporation with powers to sue, be sued, make contracts, and hold property.

Second, the state bears no formal responsibility for any of the agency’s debts or legal judgments.

Third, while the governor appoints board members and holds veto power, the law requires NJ Transit to operate with independent judgment. Together, those factors showed the agency stands on its own.

The “instrumentality” label did not hold up

New Jersey law calls NJ Transit an “instrumentality of the state,” but the Court said that label has no clear historical meaning.

Other parts of New Jersey law actually work against it by excluding entities with sue-and-be-sued authority from the state’s legal definition of “State.”

The agency’s founding law also calls it a “body corporate,” a term courts have long understood to create a separate legal identity. In short, a label alone doesn’t make something part of the state.

State funding levels did not tip the scales

New Jersey has covered anywhere from about 15% to 46% of NJ Transit’s operating budget over the years. The Court ruled that such a wide range doesn’t reliably show whether an agency is part of the state.

The opinion noted that a state doesn’t lose its immunity just because it makes someone else pay it back, and an entity doesn’t gain immunity just because the state picks up some of the tab.

NJ Transit brought in roughly $832 million in operating revenue in 2024.

Twenty-three states wanted a simpler rule

Twenty-three states filed a brief urging the Court to adopt a straightforward approach: let each state’s own label for an entity decide whether it gets immunity. The justices turned that idea down.

The opinion noted that states sometimes describe the same entity in different and conflicting ways depending on the legal situation. That kind of rule wouldn’t create the consistency the states were after.

Legal experts warned the decision could increase legal exposure for transit agencies and other state-sponsored organizations.

Other state-created agencies could face new questions

The ruling may reach well beyond transit. Legal analysts say port authorities, energy utilities, public universities, and economic development corporations could face similar questions about their immunity.

The Court didn’t issue a blanket rule, though. Justices said courts must look at each entity’s structure on a case-by-case basis.

The decision makes clear that states wanting the flexibility of creating independent corporate entities must also accept the legal exposure that comes with that choice.

Both injured men head back to court

The Supreme Court reversed Pennsylvania’s ruling that had thrown out Galette’s case and upheld New York’s decision letting Colt’s case go forward. Both lawsuits now head back to their state courts.

The two men will finally get the chance to argue their negligence claims where they were hurt.

NJ Transit can still defend itself on the facts but can no longer use sovereign immunity as a shield in those courtrooms.

Ruling sets a national standard going forward

The decision draws a clear national line: a state-created corporation with traditional corporate powers that handles its own debts does not automatically get the state’s sovereign immunity.

Courts going forward will focus on formal legal structure rather than labels, funding, or how much control a state holds.

The ruling resolves years of conflicting lower court decisions that used different tests to answer this question.

For the millions of riders who depend on interstate transit, the agencies serving them can now be held accountable wherever they operate.

This article was created with AI assistance and human editing.

Read more from this brand:

• 9/11’s untold story: the F-16 pilots who almost intercepted Flight 93’s hijackers
• Jersey City’s toxic secret: the land that became Liberty State Park
• The little-known German bombing in NY that pulled the US into WWI