FI L ED U.S. COURT OF APPEAL S EL EVENTHCI RCUI T AUGUST 26, 2011 J OHN L EY CL ERK [PUBLISH] IN THE UN ITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE ELE VENTH CIRCUIT

No. 1 0- 14 28 2 D. C. Dock etNo. 2 :1 0- cv -0 18 50 -WMA NATALIE V ERSIGLIO, Pl ai nt iff -Ap pe ll ee, ve rs us BOARD OF DENTAL EXAMINERS OF ALABAMA, Defen da nt -Ap pe ll an t.

App eal fro m

th e Uni te d S ta te s Di st ric t Co urt fo r th e North ern Dis tri ctof Al ab am a (Au gu st26 , 20 11 ) Befo re DUBINA, Ch ie f Ju dg e, EDMONDSON andW ILSON, Cir cu itJu dg es . DUBINA, Ch ie f Ju dg e:App el la ntBo ardof De nt al Exam in ers of Al ab am a (the “ Bo ard ”) ap pe al s t he

di st ric t co urt’s jud gm en t d en y in g i t s ov erei gn im m un it y pro te ct io n a s an arm

of th e st at e o f Alaba m a. App el le e Nat al ie Vers ig li o c on te nd s t ha t t he Bo ardis su ffi ci en tl y

in de pe nd en t fr om

th e st at e o f Alaba m a, th atitis no t en ti tl edto Elev en th Am en dm en t i m m un it y , andth athe r cl ai m

un de r th e Fai r Lab orSta nd ard s Act s ho ul d b e al lo wedto co nt inue . The Supr em e Co urt i n Alden v. Mai ne set tl ed th e m at te r of

st at e em pl oyees s ui ng un de r th e FLSA, writ in g, “ W e h ol d t ha t t he po wers de le ga te d t o C on gr es s u nd er Art ic le I of th e Uni te d S ta te s C on st itut io n d o no t i nc lu de th e p owe r to subjec t n on co ns en ti ng Sta te s t o p riv at e su it s fo r da m ag es in st at e co urts . W e d eci de as we ll th atth e St at e o f Mai ne ha s n otco ns en te d t o s ui ts fo r ov ert im e p ay

an d l iq ui da te d d am ag es un de r th e FLSA.” 5 27 U.S. 70 6, 7 12 , 11 9 S . Ct. 2 24 0, 2 24 6 (1 99 9) . Thu s, t he qu es ti on be fo re t hi s co urt i s wh ethe r th e Bo ardis anarm

of the st at e. Fo r th e rea so ns st at edbe lo w, we con cl ud e th atat t hi s ti m e itis no t an d a ffi rm

th e jud gm en t o f th e d is tri ctco urt. 1

I. In Man de rs v. Lee , th e Ele ve nt h C irc ui t n ot edth at“ [i]t i s al so well -s et tl ed th atElev en th Am en dm en t i m m un it y ba rs su it s b ro ug htin fed eral co urt wh en th e
“The g rant or de nial of a state ’s sovere ign immunity defe nse is an issue of la

w subject to 1 de novo re view by

this court.” Garrett v. Univ. of Ala. at Birmingham Bd. of Trs. , 344 F.3d 1288, 1290 (11th Cir. 2003). 2St at e it se lf i s s ue d a ndwhen an‘ arm of t he Sta te ’ is su ed .” 33 8 F .3d13 04 , 13 08 (1 1t h C ir. 2 00 3) . Whe th er an ag en cy qu al ifi es as a n a rm

of t he st at e is a fed eral qu es ti on wit h afed eral st an da rd , bu t wh et he r th atst an da rdis m etis de te rm in edby care fu ll y rev ie win g h ow t he ag en cy is de fin edby stat e la w. Reg en ts of th e Uni v. of Ca l. v. Do e , 51 9 U.S. 4 25 , 42 9 n .5, 1 17 S. Ct. 9 00 , 90 4 n .5 (1 99 7) (“ Ult im at el y , of co ur se , th e que st io n wh et he r a p art ic ul ar s ta te ag en cy ha s t he same kin d o f in de pe nd en t s ta tu s as a co un ty or is in st eadanarm of t he Sta te , andth eref

or e ‘on e of th e Uni te d S ta te s’ withi n t he m ean in g o f th e Ele ve nt h Am en dm en t, i s a qu es ti on of f

ed eral law. Bu t t ha t fe de ral qu es ti on can be an swe redon ly after co ns id eri ng th e p ro vi si on s o f st at e la w th atde fin e th e ag en cy ’s cha ract er.”) ; Tu ves on v. Fla . Gove rn or ’s Co un ci l o n In di an Aff ai rs , Inc
. , 73 4 F .2d73 0, 7 32 (1 1t h C ir. 1 98 4) (“ The st at e la w pro vi de s as si st an ce i n a sc ert ai ni ng whet he r th e st at e in te nd edto crea te anen ti ty com pa rab le to a co un ty or m

un ic ip al it y

or o ne de si gn edto tak e ad va nt ag e o f th e st at e’s Elev en th Am en dm en t i m m un it y .”). St at es ha ve “ ex tre m el y

wid e la ti tu de in de te rm in in g t he ir f orm s o f go ve rn m en t an d ho w st at e func ti on s ar e p erfo rm ed .” Abu sa id v. Hil ls bo ro ugh C

nt y. Bd. o f Cn ty . Co mm’rs , 40 5 F .3d12 98 , 13 03 (11 th Cir . 20 05 ) (quo ta ti on m ark s o m it te d) . Butif a st at e cre at es anin st itut io n i n s uc h away th atgi ve s i t i nd ep en de nc e, “ [w]hat ev er m ay ha ve be en th e st at e’s reas on fordo in g i t [tha t] way , itm us t l iv e wit h the 3co ns eque nc es . It ca nn otcla im animm un it y ba se d o n aco nd it io n wh ic h i t i ts el f so ug htto av oi d.” W

il li ams v. Eas ts ide Men ta l Hea lth Ctr ., Inc
. , 66 9 F .2d67 1, 67 8 (1 1th C ir. 1 98 2) . In co nduc ti ng ou r an al y si s, thi s co urt “ ha s s ta te d t he m os t im po rta ntfact oris ho w th e en ti ty has be en tre at edby the st at e co urts .” Tu ves on , 73 4 F .2dat 7 32 (ci ti ng Hub er , Hun t & Nic ho ls , Inc . v. Arch it ect ur al St on e Co ., 62 5 F .2d22 , 25 (5t h C ir.1 98 0) ). 2 II. In Mic co su kee T

ri be of Ind ia ns v. Flo ri da St at e Ath le ti c Co mmis si on , th is co urt s etfor th a fo urpa rt t es t t o g ui de ou r an al y si s o f whe th er s ta te law es tabl is he s an ag en cy

as a n a rm

of t he st at e. 22 6 F .3d12 26 (11 th Cir . 20 00 ). Mic co su kee ex pl ai ns , “ Inde te rm in in g wh et he r th e Ele ve nt h Am en dm en t p ro vi de s i m m un it y to a p art ic ul ar en ti ty, th is co urt ex am in es th e fo ll owi ng fact or s: (1) ho w st at e la w de fin es th e en ti ty; (2) whatde gr ee o f co nt ro l the st at e m ai nt ai ns ov er t he en ti ty; (3 ) whe re t he en ti ty deri ve s i ts fun ds ; an d (4 ) who is res po ns ib le forjud gm en ts ag ai ns t t he en ti ty.” Id
. at 1 23 1. Ap pl y in g t hi s t es t, t he co urt i n Mic co su kee de te rm in edth atth e Fl or id a St at e Ath le ti c Co m m is si on co ns ti tu te d a n a rm of t he st at e an d was en ti tl edto Elev en th Am en dm en t i m m un it y .
In Bonner v. City of Prichard, 661 F.2d 1206, 1207 ( 11th Cir. 1981) (en ba nc), the 2 Eleventh Circuit adopte d as bindingprec edent the de cisions of the F ifth Circuit render ed prior to October 1, 1981. 4In it ia ll y , th e Bo ardap pe ars to ha ve a vi ab le arg um en t t ha t i t i s an arm of t he st at e u nd er t he Mic co su kee tes t. Fi rs t, Al ab am a la w su gg es ts th atth e Bo ardis an arm of t he st at e. Increa ti ng th e Bo ard , th e le gi sl atur e m ad e sp eci fic fin di ng s t ha t

“ th e p ract ic e o f de nt is try affect s t he publ ic he al th , saf et y an d wel fare an d s ho ul d be subjec t t o re gu la ti on .” A LA . C O D E § 3 4- 9- 2( a). The se fin di ng s i nd ic at e th atth e le gi sl atur e sa w th e Bo ardas a n a rm of the st at e, no ti ng , “ The li cen su re by th is st at e of n on res id en t d en ti st s wh o e ng ag e in de nt al pra ct ic e wit hi n t hi s s ta te is wit hi n t he publ ic in te res t.” Id
. § 3 4- 9- 2( c) (e m ph as is ad de d) . A regu la to ry bo dy is de fin edun de r th e st at e’s imm un it y pro vi si on as “ [a] st at e ag en cy whi ch is su es reg ul at io ns in acco rd an ce wi th th e Alaba m a Adm in is tra ti ve Pro cedur e Actor a st at e, co un ty, orm

un ic ip al de pa rtment, a ge nc y , bo ard , or c omm is si on whi ch co nt ro ls , acco rd in g t o ru le or r eg ul at io n, t he act iv it ie s, b us in es s l ic en su re, o r fu nc ti on s o f an y

gro up , per so n, o r pe rs on s.” Id
. § 6 -5 -3 40 (a)( 7) . The Al ab am a Adm in is tra ti ve Pro cedur e Actgo ve rn s “ [e]very st at e ag en cy

ha vi ng expr es s st atut ory au th or it y to pro m ul ga te rul es an d re gu la ti on s.” Id
. § 4 1- 22 -2 (d ). The Bo ardis gra nt edth e au th or it y to m ak e su ch rul es an d re gu la ti on s i n S ect io n 34 -9 -4 3 o f th e Alaba m a Co de . Mo reo ve r, whi le th e Bo ardha s a d eg ree o f in de pe nd en ce, the st atut ory sc he m e th atcrea te d i t al lo ws t he st at e to m ai nt ai n c on tro l o ve r it s o pe rat io ns . 5Mic co su kee reco gn iz es th atth e reg ul at ory ab il it ie s i nh eren t i n ali cen si ng ag en cy —i nc lu di ng qu as i-l eg is la ti ve an d q ua si -jud ic ia l fu nc ti on s— do es no t re nd er itin de pe nd en t o f th e st at e. In Mic co su kee, th e co urt n ot edth atth e Co m m is si on ’s ru le -m ak in g fu nc ti on s wer e co ns tra in edby leg is la ti ve gu id el in es . 22 6 F .3dat 12 32 . The Bo ardis si m il arl y de si gn ed . Sect io n 3 4- 9- 43 gra nt s t he Bo ardpo wer to pro m ul ga te reg ul at io ns , bu t o nl y as p ro vi de d b y

Ch ap te r 9 o f th e Alaba m a Co de . For e xa m

pl e, th e Co de , andno t t he Bo ard , set s fo rth ap pl ic at io n c at eg or ie s, Sect io n 3 4- 9- 10 , reg is tra ti on pro cedur es an d d ead li ne s, Se ct io n 3 4- 9- 15 , a ran ge of fees th e Bo ardm ay

ch arg e, Sect io n 3 4- 9- 16 , andex am in at io n re qu ire m en ts , Sect io n 3 4- 9- 26 , am on g o th ers . In Mic co su kee , th e co urt n ot edth atth e Ath le ti c Co m m is si on was n ot pe rm it te d u nf

et te reddi sc ret io n t o s us pe ndor r ev ok e li cen se s, b utrat he r “ th e st at e al lo ws t he Co m

m is si on to su sp en d o r rev ok e a l ic en se fora li m it ednu m be r of gr ou nd s.” 2 26 F.3dat 1 23 2. Si m il arl y , th e Bo ardm ay on ly inv ok e d is ci pl in ary act io n a ga in sta li cen se e subjec t t o S ect io n 3 4- 9- 18 , whi chset s fo rth sev en te en gr ou nd s fo r Bo ardact io n a ndni ne di ffer en t s an ct io ns th e Bo ardm ay pro sc rib e ba se d o n t ho se gro un ds . Sect io n 3 4- 9- 18 (d ) requi res a he ari ng be fo re an y di sc ip li na ry

act io n c an be tak en , andSect io n 3 4- 9- 25 all ows forap pe al to th e ci rcu itco urts on th e g ro un ds th atBo ardact io n i s ei th er i ll eg al or a rb it rary. The 6Bo ardis all owe d t o “ reque stass is ta nc e fro m th e Att orne y

Gene ral ” in en fo rci ng it s dut ie s, an d a ll “pr os ecu ti ng att orne y s t hr ou gh ou t t he st at e sh al l as si stth e b oa rd , up on reque stof e it he r, inan y act io n fo r in

jun ct io n o r pr os ecu ti on wit ho utch arg e orad di ti on al co m

pe ns at io n.” A LA . C O D E § 3 4- 9- 43 .1(a ). One areain whi ch th e Bo ardis m or e in de pe nd en t than t he Co m m is si on in Mic co su kee is th e co m

po si ti on of t he Bo ardit se lf. In Mic co su kee , th e Co m m is si on was app oi nt edby the Gov ern or , subjec t t o c on firm at io n b y th e Sen at e. 22 6 F .3dat 1 23 2– 33 . W e n ot edth at“ [s ]tate au th or it y ov er the ap po in tm en t o f ag en cy

m em be rs len ds supp ort t o fi nd in g t ha t t he ag en cy is anarm of th e st at e,” b utwe di d n otfin d t he ap po in tm en t p ro cedur e to be de fin it iv e. Id
. Here, wh il e th e st at e d oe s n otsel ectth e Bo ard , itha s es tabl is he d d et ai le d gu id el in es forho w th e m em be rs are t o b e se le ct ed . Se e A LA . C O D E § 3 4- 9- 40 (“ The bo ardsh al l co ns is t o f si x d en ti st s wh o s ha ll be sel ect edin th e m et ho d s et fo rth he rei n a ll of wh om

ha vi ng be en act iv el y

en ga ge d i n the pra ct ic e o f de nt is try in th e St at e o f Alaba m a fo r atlea stfiv e y ears ne xtpre ced in g t he da te of the ir el ect io n a ndon e d en ta l h y gi en is t el ect edat- la rg e an d a s p ro vi de d i n s ub se ct io n (b ). Each m em

be r of th e b oa rdsh al l b e a ci ti zenof t hi s s ta te .”).

III.

7App el le e arg ue s t ha t a s tro ng po in t i n fa vo r of th e Bo ard ’s in de pe nd en ce fro m th e st at e is th e fac t t ha t i t d eri ve s i ts fun ds fro m li cen si ng fees an d c an sp en d it s m on ey pu rs ua ntto it s o wn d is cret io n. Th is po si ti on was l arg el y reject edin Mic co su kee whe re t hi s co urt fo un d t ha t i t i s t he am ou ntof c on tro l o ve r th e ag en cy ’s fis cal li fe, n otth e so ur ce o f it s fu nd in g, t ha t i s m os t p ert in en t. 2 26 F.3d at12 33 ; Fou ch e v. Jek

yl l Is la nd -Sta te Park Auth. , 71 3 F .2d15 18 , 15 20 –2 1 (1 1t h Ci r. 19 83 ) (“ Eve n t ho ug h the ParkAut ho rit y can rai se m on ey

th ro ug h t he is su an ce of bo nd s an d fr om

th e o pe rat io n o f Je kyll Is la ndSta te Park , it s fi sc al li fe i s co nt ro ll edby the st at e.”). Fu rth erm or e, whi le th e li cen si ng fees pa idto th e Bo ard ne ve r en te r th e st at e tr eas ury , th is ap pe ars to be li tt le m or e th an anacco un ti ng de ci si on by the st at e. The B oard ’s enabl in g l eg is la ti on reco gn iz es th atth e fee s pa idto th e Bo ardare co nt ro ll edby the st at e, sp eci fic al ly autho riz in g, “ All m on ey , in cl ud in g l ic en se fees , ann ua l re ne wal l ic en se cert ifi cat e fee s, ex am in at io n fe es an d a ny andall ot he r fee s an d re cei pt s . . . are h ereb y ap pr op ria te d t o t he Bo ardof Den ta l Ex am in ers to be us edas h erei n p ro vi de d.” A LA . C O D E § 3 4- 9- 41 . Fin al ly, th e Bo ardis on ly abl e to co ll ectli cen si ng fees be cau se itis im bu edwit h the po wer of th e st at e. W it ho utit s au th or iz in g l eg is la ti on an d e nf or cem en t p owe rs gra nt ed th erei n, t he Bo ardwou ldha ve no ab il it y to co ll ectli cen si ng fees at a ll .

8The Bo arddo es no t h av e u nf et te reddi sc ret io n t o s pe ndit s fu nd s. Ra th er, th e Bo ardis on ly “ au th or iz edto ex pe ndsu ch fun ds as s ha ll be ne ces sa ry to en fo rce t he pro vi si on s o f th is ch ap te r; t o p ay sal ari es , exp en se s an d o th er co st s he rei n p ro vi de d; to pro m ot e th e art s an d s ci en ce o f de nt is try; an d fo r su ch ot he r pu rp os es as t he bo ardsh al l co ns id er t o b e in th e b es t i nt eres t o f de nt is try in t hi s st at e.” Id
. § 3 4- 9- 41 . To en su re co m pl ia nc e wit h t hi s re qu ire m en t, “ [t]he se cret ary-treas ur er o f th e b oa rdsh al l co m pi le anan nu al rep ort wh ic h s ha ll co nt ai n an it em iz edst at em en t o f al l m on ey rece iv edan d d is bu rs edan d asu m m ary of th e of fic ia l ac ts of t he bo arddu rin g t he pre ced in g year, an d t he rep ort s ha ll ha ve at ta ch edth eret o acert ifi edrep ort an d aud itm ad e b y a cert ifi edpubl ic acco un ta nt of th e St at e o f Alaba m a.” Id
. § 3 4- 9- 42 . In Fou ch e , th is co urt di sc us se d t he si gn ifi can ce o f su ch anau di t, wri ti ng , “ [The ParkAutho rit y ’s] bu dg etis subm it te d to th e Gen eral Ass em

bl y . All o f it s fi na nc ia l re co rd s m us t b e su bm it te d a nn ua ll y to th e st at e au di to r fo r in sp ect io n.” 71 3 F .2dat 1 52 0– 21 . Fin al ly, th e fu nd s ra is ed by the Bo ardare h el d i n t ru st . In t he ev en t t ha t t he st at e le gi sl atur e d eci de s t o te rm in at e th e Bo ard

—a p owe r whi ch it se lf p ro vi de s s tro ng ev id en ce tha t t he Bo ardis anarm

of the st at e—“ al l u ne xp en de d fu nd s re ve rt[ ] ba ckto th e st at e fu nd fro m whi ch it s ap pr op ria ti on was m ad e.” A LA . C O D E § 4 1- 20 -1 2. Si nc e th e fee s

9were s im

pl y ap pr op ria te d t o the Bo ardan d d idno t co m e fro m a sp eci fic st at e fu nd , pr es um ab ly the y

wou ldreturn t o t he st at e tr eas ury . Inth e p as t, t he co urt h as de sc rib edth e ex te ntto whi ch a lawsu itim pl ic at es th e St at e tr eas ury

as n earl y di sp os it iv e. Sh an ds Tea ch in g Ho sp . &Cli ni cs , Inc . v. Beech St . Cor

p. , 20 8 F .3d13 08 , 13 11 (11 th Cir . 20 00 ); Fou ch e , 71 3 F .2dat 1 52 1 (“ The Elev en th Am en dm en t p ro te ct s the so ve rei gn ty of th e st at e b y pro hi bi ti ng su it s wh en reco ve ry

wou ldbe pa idfro m

st at e fu nd s.”) . App el le e p ai nt s t hi s as th e st ro ng es t fa ct orin he r fav or , arg ui ng , “ The re i s n o e vi de nc e th atth e St at e o f Alab am a ri sk s l os in g a ny m on ey fro m th is li ti ga ti on .” (App el le e’s Bri ef at7.) Thi s s ta te m en t i s n otco rrec t. Fi rs t, t he Bo ard ’s fun ds are s ta te fun ds . As no te d abo ve , whi le th e fee s co ll ect edby the Bo ardare n otde riv eddi rect ly from th e st at e, th ey

are h el d i n t ru st an d c anon ly be u se d i n ways au th or iz edby stat e st atut e. Mo re i m po rta nt ly, we ne edno t s pe cu la te ab ou t t he ul ti m at e res po ns ib il ity for th e Bo ard ’s deb ts . The st at e co de pro vi de s t ha t wh en a st at e ag en cy su ch as t he Bo ardis term in at ed , “ The st at e Co m pt ro ll er i s au th or iz edto dra w warran ts on th e St at e Treas ury foran y ou ts ta nd in g a cco un ts whi ch are l eg al ly owedbu t u ns et tl edby any ag en cy whi ch ha s ce as edfun ct io ni ng pu rs ua ntto th is ch ap te r. Suc h c la im s m us t b e p res en te d an d p ai d i n t he same m an ne r as requi redby law fo r an y cla im forth e p aym en t o f 10st at e fu nd s.” A LA . C O D E § 4 1- 20 -1 4. Th us , if t hi s l aws ui t wer e al lo wedto

co nt in ue , itap pe ars th e st at e o f Alaba m a wou ldbe ul ti m at el y res po ns ib le foran y jud gm en t en te redth erei n. IV. Des pi te th e st ren gth o f th e Bo ard ’s cla im of s ov erei gn imm

un it y un de r th e Mic co su kee tes t, o ne fact orweig hs he av il y ag ai ns t i t. OnApri l 1 , 20 11 , th e Co urt of Civ il App eal s o f Alaba m a rel eas edit s o pi ni on in W ilki ns on v. Boa rd

of Dent al Exa min er s o f Al ab ama , 20 11 W L 12 05 66 9, 2 01 1 Al a. Ci v. Ap p. LEXIS 8 8 (Al a. Ci v. Ap p. Ap ril 1, 2 01 1) . In i ts op in io n, t he st at e ap pe al s co urt co nduc te d t he 3 fir stsubs ta nt ia l an al y si s b y a st at e co urt o f th e Bo ard ’s st atus as ast at e ag en cy . 4 The Bo ardarg ue d t ha t i t was imm un e fro m su itin st at e co urt p ur su an t t o Art ic le 1, Sect io n 1 4 o f th e Alaba m a Co ns ti tu ti on . Thatsec ti on pro vi de s tha t “ th e St at e o f Alab am a sh al l n ev er b e m ad e a d efen da ntin an y co urt o f la w or e qu it y .” Alab am a co urts ha ve co ns tru edth is imm un it y to ex te ndto arm s o f th e st at e. Armo ry Co mm’n v . Stau dt , 38 8 S o. 2 d 9 91 , 99 3 (Al a. 19 80 ). The t es t fo r en ti ti es see ki ng We note that althoug h the attorne y s of re cord in W ilkinson arethe same a s in our prese nt 3 case , no party

saw fit to inform us of the state cour t’s decision. Prior to this decision, the two state courts to addr ess the issue had se eming ly found, if 4 only in passing, that the Boa

rd wa s an ar

m of the state. Vining v. Bd. of Dental Exam ’rs , 492 So. 2d 607, 610 (Ala. Civ. App. 1985) ( “The Dental B oard is a state ag ency . Henc e, the Pinkerton ag ents wer e ag ents of the state .”); Delavan v . Bd. of Dental Exam’rs , 620 So. 2d 13, 18 (Ala. Civ. App. 1992) (citing Vining). 11imm

un it y is m uc h l ik e th is co urt’s t es t: whet he r “ a la wsu itag ai ns t a b od y crea te d by leg is la ti ve en act m en t i s a s ui t ag ai ns t t he st at e d ep en ds on th e ch arac te r of po wer d el eg at edto th e b od y , th e rel at io n o f th e b od y to th e st at e, an d t he na tu re o f th e fu nc ti on pe rfo rm edby the bo dy.” Id
. App lying th is tes t, t he Co urt o f Ci vi l App eal s ex am in edm an y

of t he pro vi si on s d is cu ss edab ov e, co nc lu di ng th atth e Bo ardis no t an arm

of t he st at e an d t hu s “ is no t en ti tl edto § 1 4 i m m un ity .” W ilki ns on , 20 11 Ala. Ci v. Ap p. Lex is 88 at * 16 , 20 11 W L 12 05 66 9 a t * 5. Thi s co urt g iv es gre atde fere nc e to ho w st at e co urts ch arac te riz e th e en ti ty in qu es ti on . This pra ct ic e is in ke ep in g wi th th e o rd in ary de fere nc e g ran te d s ta te co urts when th ey

in te rp retm at te rs of s ta te co nc ern . Se e Sil ver be rg v. Pai ne , W eb be r, Ja cks on & Cu rt is , Inc
. , 71 0 F .2d67 8, 6 90 (11 th Cir . 19 83 ) (“ A fed eral co urt ap pl y in g s ta te law i s b ou ndto adhe re t o d eci si on s o f th e st at e’s in te rm ed ia te ap pe ll at e co urts ab se ntso m e p ers ua si ve in di cat io n t ha t t he st at e’s hi gh es t co urt wou ldde ci de th e is su e o th erwi se .”). Fed eral co urts are o fte n m or e sk ep ti cal of st at e co urt d eci si on s i nv ol vi ng is su es of s ov erei gn imm un it y , as o th erwi se “ [a] st at e wou ldha ve to o m

uc h s el f-i nt eres t i n e xt en di ng so ve rei gn imm un it y to as m an y of i ts ag en ci es an d c or

po rat e cre at io ns as p os si bl e.” Mil le r- Dav is Co . v. Ill in ois Sta te To ll

Highw ay Auth. , 56 7 F .2d32 3, 3 30 (7t h C ir. 1 97 7) . Howev er, th atco nc ern is ob vi at edwhen , as h ere, t he st at e co urt fi nd s t ha t an en ti ty is n otan 12arm

of t he st at e. Id
. (“ Esp eci al ly whe n ast at e supr em e co urt d oe s n otex te nd imm un it y bu t, ra th er, h ol ds th atanen ti ty is n otto be de em edth e st at e fo r pu rp os es of so ve rei gn imm

un it y , we th in k t he fed eral co urts m us t p ay care fu l at te nt io n t o th e st at e o pi ni on .”). Fi nd in g tha t the Bo ardis en ti tl edto so ve rei gn imm un it y wou ldrequi re t hi s co urt t o i nt erp retAlab am a la w in a way th atis di am etric al ly opp os edto th e fin di ng s o f th e h ig he stst at e co urt t o c on si de r th e is su e. Su ch a ru li ng wou ldals o crea te th e in co ng ru ou s re su ltof h av in g a“ st at e ag en cy ” th atis imm un e fro m su it un de r fed eral law b utno t u nd er s ta te law. Cf . Ald en , 52 7 U.S. at79 3 n .29 , 11 9 S . Ct . at 2 28 5 n .29 (no ti ng in a di ffer en t co nt ex t t ha t t he Fram ers of t he Elev en th Am en dm en t “ wou ldha ve co ns id ereditab su rdth atSta te s i m m un e in fed eral co urt co ul d b e su bjec te d t o s ui t i n t he ir o wn co urts ”). As s uc h, we b el ie ve th ata ho ld in g b y

th is co urt t ha t t he Bo ardis anarm of the st at e fo r pu rp os es of so ve rei gn imm

un it y wou ldbe in ap pr op ria te .

V. Fo r th e afo rem en ti on edreas on s, we af firm th e d is tri ctco urt’s fi nd in g tha t th e Bo ardis no t en ti tl edto so ve rei gn imm un it y pro te ct io n a s an arm

of the st at e o f Alab am a. AFFIRMED. 13