IN THE SUPREME COURT OF NORTH CAROLINA 2022

- NCSC

- 107 No. 457PA19

- 2 Filed 4 November 2022 SHARELL FARMER

v. TROY UNIVERSITY, PAMELA GAINEY, and KAREN TILLERY

On discretionary review pursuant to N.C.G.S. § 7A

- 31 of a unanimous decision of the Court of Appeals, 27 6 N.C. App. 53 , 2021

- NCCOA

- 36 affirming an order entered on 1 July 201 9 by Judge Andrew T. Heath in Superior Court, Cumberland County

. Heard in the Supreme Court on 30 A ugust 202 2

.

Kennedy, Kennedy, Kennedy and Kennedy, LLP, by Harvey L. Kennedy and Harold L. Kenned

y III, for plaintiff

- appellant. F ord & H arrison , LLP, by Benjamin P. Fryer, for defendant

- appellees.
EARLS, Justice

.
¶ 1 Troy University is an accredited, four

- year state university with multiple physical campus es in Alabama that opened an office in Fayetteville, North Carolina , specifically to recruit military students for its on

- line programs. When a former North Carolina employee filed suit ag ainst Troy University alleging various state tort claims arising out of his employment in Fayetteville and his termination, theF ARMER V
. T ROY U NIV
. 2022

- NCSC

- 107 Opinion of the Court
University asserted that sovereign immunity barred his claims. Reading two 2019 United States Supreme Court decisions together and consistent with earlier analogous precedent , we conclude that Troy University’s actions in registering as a

non - profit corporation in North Carolina and engaging in business here subject to the sue and be sued clause of t he North Carolina Nonprofit Co rporation Act, N.C.G.S. § 55A

- 3

- 02 (a)(1) (2021) , constituted an explicit waiver of its sovereign immunity. See Franchise Tax B d. of California v. Hyatt , 139 S. Ct. 1485 (2019); Thacker v. Tenn

. Valley Auth

. , 139 S. Ct 1435 (2019) ; see also Georgia v. City o f Chattanooga , 264 U.S. 472 (1924). I. Background ¶ 2 T ro y University , a state institution, has its primary campus in Troy, Alabama. Although Troy University does not have a campus in North Carolina , it registered with the North Carolina Secretary of State as a n onprofit c orporation on 25 September 2006 and leased an office building in Fayetteville, North Carolina, near Fort Bragg , where it conducted its business

. Mr. Farmer was hired by Troy University in May 2014 as a recruiter and worked there until 9 September 2015. As part of his employment, Mr. Farmer recruit ed military personnel from Fort Bra gg to take on

line educational courses that originated from Troy University’s main campus in Troy, Alabama. Throughout his em ployment, he was the top recruiter in the southeastern region of the United States.F ARMER V
. T ROY U NIV
. 2022

- NCSC

- 107 Opinion of the Court

¶ 3 Mr. Farmer claims that w hile employed at Troy University , he was subjected to frequent and ongoing sexual harassment by Pamela Gainey and Karen Tillery, both of whom also worked at the Troy University o ffice in Fayetteville , North Carolina. This harassment included unwanted touching , and making false statements to third parties about Mr. Farmer’s sexual relationships with married women and female students. Mr. Farmer f urther alleges he witnessed students be ing subjected to sexual harassment, such as one student who was “ challenged ” by Mses. Gainey and Tillery “ to pull his pants down and show them h is penis ” and another male student who m they called a “faggot

. ”
¶ 4 Around May 2015, Mr. Farmer filed a complaint with both Troy University ’s Human Resources Department and Troy University’s District Director about the sexual harassment he and other males had experienced

. Although Mr. Farmer had given T roy University the n ame s of several witnesses, Troy University did not interview any witnesses before deciding that Mr. Farmer’s complaint lacked merit. ¶ 5 Mr. Farmer further alleges that , following his May 2015 complaint , Ms. Gainey retaliated against him by i ncreas ing his work hours and making his working conditions unreasonably onerous . On 9 September 2015 , Mr. Farmer was terminated from his job at Troy University

. He was escorted from the building by two police officers, one with a hand on their gun, and the other wi th a hand on Mr. Farmer’s shoulder pushing him forward. He was also threatened with arrest if he ever set footF ARMER V
. T ROY U NIV
. 2022

- NCSC

- 107 Opinion of the Court
on the property again. As a result of this treatment , and his termination from Troy University, Mr. Farmer became homeless, could not obtain anot her job , and suffered serious mental health consequences . ¶ 6 On 24 July 2018, Mr. Farmer filed this suit against Troy University and the individual d efendants, Ms. Gainey, and Ms. Tillery

. Mr. Farmer asserted claims against Troy University for (1) wrongful discharge from employment in violation of public policy, and (2) negligent retention or supervision of an employee , or both

. He also asserted claims against all d efendants for intentional infliction of mental and emotional distress and tortious i nterference with contractual rights. In the alternative, Mr. Farmer also advanced a claim against all d efendants alleging a violation of his rights under the North Carolina Constitution, in the event that the trial court found his other claims were barred by sovereign immunity. ¶ 7 On 3 October 2018, all d efendants (Troy University, Ms. Gainey, and Ms. Tillery) filed a motion to dismiss pursuant to Rule 12(b)(6) for failure to state a claim upon which relief can be granted , which the trial court denied. O n 6 December 2018, all d efendants filed an answer to Mr. Farmer’s complaint, generally denying the claims and asserting numerous defenses, including sovereign immunity

. On 13 May 2019, the Supreme Court of the United States issued its opinion in Franchise Tax Board of California v. Hyatt ( Hyatt III ), a five

- to

- four decision, and held that “States retain their sovereign immunity from private suits brought in the courts of otherF ARMER V
. T ROY U NIV
. 2022

- NCSC

- 107 Opinion of the Court

States.” Hyatt III

, 139 S. Ct. 1485, 1492 (2019). Before Hyatt III , the rule was that S tates were allowed, but not constitutionally required , to extend sovereign immunity to sister S tates as a matter of comity. See Nevada v. Hall , 440 U.S. 410, 425 (1979). Under that rule, Alabama could be sued in North Carolina by a pri vate party if North Carolina chose not to acknowledge Alabama’s sovereign immunity. See id . at 42 6

– 27 ; see, e.g . Atl. Coast Conference v. Univ. of Md ., 230 N.C. App. 429, 4 40 (2013) (declining to extend sovereign immunity as a matter of comity in a contrac t action, stating “it does not follow that because we decided to extend comity to the University of Virginia in Cox we must, ipso facto, extend sovereign immunity to all the educational institutions of our sister states irrespective of the attendant circumstances.”) (citing Cox v. Roach , 218 N.C. App. 311, 318 (2012)). Hyatt III established that in general,
states are required to recognize the sovereign immunity of other states as a matter of F ederal Constitutional law. ¶ 8 Two days after the decision in Hyatt III , Troy University filed another motion to dismiss on 15 May 2019 based on sovereign immunity, pursuant to R ules 12(b)(2) and 12(b)(6) of the North Carolina R ules of Civil Procedure , while individual defendants Gainey and Tillery simultaneously sought dismissal of all claims against them based on mootness in light of a stipulation filed on 25 April 2019 in which Mr. Farmer agreed not to seek damages against the individual defendants

. On 24 May 2019, d efendants filed an amended motion to dismiss, or in the alternative, forF ARMER V
. T ROY U NIV
. 2022

- NCSC

- 107 Opinion of the Court
judgment on the pleadings on the same grounds . On 3 June 2019, Mr. Farmer filed his respons e. On 1 July 2019, the trial court entered an order granting the motion to dismiss as to all defendants, citing Hyatt III

. Mr. Farmer appealed, but the Court of Appeals rejected Mr. Farmer ’ s arguments and affirmed the trial court’s order. F armer v. Troy Univ. , 276 N.C. App. 53, 2021

- NCCOA

- 36, ¶ 52

. Mr. Farmer filed a petition for d iscretionary r eview pursuant to N.C.G.S. § 7A

- 31 and this Court granted review. II. Sovereign Immunity ¶ 9 This Court reviews de novo a motion to dismiss made under Rule 12(b)(6) of the North Carolina Rules of Civil Procedure

. E.g. Krawiec v. Manly , 370 N.C. 602, 606 (2018) (stating standard of review for a 12(b)(6) motion) . “[Q]uestions of law regarding the applicability of sovereign or governmental immunity” are also reviewed de novo . Est

. of Long by and through Long v. Fowler , 3 78 N.C. 138 , 2021

- NCSC

- 81, ¶ 12 (quoting Wray v. City of Greensboro , 370 N.C. 41 , 47 (2017)). Furthermore,

s overeign immunity may be a defense under Rule 12(b)(2) of the North Carolina Rules of Civil Procedure. 1 In this case, as noted above, the motion and the trial court’s order were made pursuant to both Rule 12(b)(2) and Rule 12(b)(6) ; however the questions

1 “As was the case in Teachy v. Coble D ai ries , Inc

. we need not decide whether a motion to dismiss on the basis of sovereign immunity is properly designated as a Rule 12(b)(1) motion or a 12(b)(2) motion. ” Est

. of Long , ¶ 12 n.1 ; s ee Teachy v. Coble D ai ries, Inc . 306 N.C. 324, 328 (1982) ( expl aining this designation is crucial in North Carolina because denial of a Rule 12(b)(2) motion is immediately appealable by statute but the denial of a 12(b)(1) motion is not. ) In this case, the motion to dismiss was granted and neither Mr. Farmer’s appeal to the Court of Appeals n or this Court was an interlocutory appeal. Est

. of Long , ¶12 n.1.F ARMER V
. T ROY U NIV
. 2022

- NCSC

- 107 Opinion of the Court

of whether there is personal jurisdiction over defendants and whether plaintiff has stated a claim for relief in this particular case both turn on the sole issue of sovereign immunity , and the standard of review is the same for both. 2 ¶ 10 The initial issue in this appeal is whether Mr. Farmer’s state tort claims against defendants are barred in North Carolina under the doctrine of sovereign immunity by virtue of Troy University’s status in Alabama as a public university

. The Court of Appeals concluded that under Hyatt III , no suit may be maintained because “States retain their sovereign immunity from private suits brought in the courts of other States.” Farmer , ¶ 14 (quoting Hyatt III , 139 S

. Ct. at 1492). ¶ 11 The doctrine of s overeign immunity , establishing that a sovereign cannot be sued without its consent , see Alden v. Maine, 527 U.S. 706 , 715

– 16 (1999) , was widely accepted in the s tates at the time the Constitution was drafted. Hyatt III , 139 S. Ct.
at 1493

– 1495

. As Alexander Hamilton explained in T he Federalist No. 81, “ I t is inherent in the nature of sovereignty not to be amen able to the suit of an individual without its consent

. . . and the exemption is

. . . now enjoyed by the government of every State in the Union. ” The Federalist No. 81, at 487 ( Alexander Hamilton) (J. & A. McLean ed., 1788).

2 The trial court’s o rder does not distinguish any separate ground for dismissal of the individual defendants. Mr. Farmer’s appeal only raises the question of whether suit in North Carolina against Troy University is barred by sovereign immunity . Therefore, we have no occasion here to consider the extent to which another state’s sovereign immunity bars individual defendants’ liability for their intentional torts in North Carolina.F ARMER V
. T ROY U NIV
. 2022

- NCSC

- 107 Opinion of the Court

¶ 12 Sovereign immunity is enshrined in A labama’s Constitution, which declares that “the State of Alabama shall never be made a defendant in any court of law or equity.” Ex parte Davis , 930 So.2d 497 , 500 (Ala. 2005) (quoting Ala

. Const. art I, § 14). “This immunity extends to [the State of Alabama’s] institutions of higher learning. Ala

. State Univ. v. Danley , 212 So.3d 112, 12 2 (Ala. 2016) (quoting Taylor v. Troy State University , 437 So.2d 472, 474 (Ala.1983)). Moreover, Alabama “ S tate officers and e mployees, in their official capacities and individually, [also are] absolutely immune from suit when the action is, in effect, one against the S tate.” Id

. (quoting Philips v. Thomas , 555 So. 2d 81, 83 (Ala.1989)). This principle is familiar to North Caroli na where our state institutions of higher learning are also deemed to be arms of the S tate protected by sovereign immunity except in certain circumstances

. See Corum v. Univ

. of N .C

. , 330 N.C. 761 , 786 (1992) (finding that although the University of North Carolina could typically claim sovereign immunity, the plaintiff had a direct cause of action under the s tate c onstitution) ; Smith v. State , 289 N.C. 303, 320 (1976) (holding that the State of North Car olina, including its agencies, consents to be sued for damages for breach of contract whenever it enters into a valid contract). ¶ 13 Before 2019, controlling United States Supreme Court precedent in Nevada v. Hall provided that States maintained their sovereign immunity from suit in other
state courts as a matter of comity

. 440 U.S. 410, 425 (1979). But in 2019, the UnitedF ARMER V
. T ROY U NIV
. 2022

- NCSC

- 107 Opinion of the Court
States Supreme Court explicitly overturned its holding in Hall

. S ee Hyatt III , 139 S. Ct. at 1490 , 1492 ( concluding that Nevada v. Hall is “contrary to our constitutional design”)

. In Hyatt III , the Court determined that States retained their sovereign immunity from private suits brought in the courts of other s tates regardless of comity. Id. at 1492. P ut another way, the Hyatt III decision holds that the United States Constitution does not simply permit a State to grant its sister States immunity from suit but requires it. See id. at 1499 (Breyer, J., dissenting). Under Hyatt III and the United States C onstitution , as a general matter , Troy University is entitled to sovereign immunity from suit without its consent in the state courts of every state in the country. See Hyatt III , 139 S. Ct. at 1490 (majority opinion). III. Waiver of Sovereign Immunity ¶ 14 Next, this Court must determine whether Troy University has explicitly waived its sovereign immunity from suit in North Carolina

. As the Court of Appeals noted, any waiver of sovereign immunity must be explicit. See Sossamon v. Texas , 563 U.S. 277, 284 (20 11); Coll. Sav. Bank v. Fla. Prepaid Postsecondary Educ. Expense Bd. , 527 U.S. 666, 682 (1999). Nonetheless, United States Supreme Court precedent does not support the Court of Appeals’ conclusion that a sue and be sued clause cannot constitute an explicit waiver of sovereign immunity. Specifically, we find that when Troy University registered as a nonprofit corporation here and engaged in business in North Carolina, it accepted the sue and be sued clause in theF ARMER V
. T ROY U NIV
. 2022

- NCSC

- 107 Opinion of the Court

North Carolina Nonprofit Corporation Act and thereby explicitly waived its sovereign immunity from suit in this state. ¶ 15 The North Carolina Nonprofit Corporation Act covers all nonprofit corporations in North Carolina. This act contains a sue and be sued clause. Specifically, the Act provides :

(a) Unless its articles of incorporation or this Chapter provides otherwise, every corporation has perpetual duration and succession in its corporate name and has the same powers as an individual to do all things necessary or convenient to carry out its affairs, including without limitation, power: (1) To sue and be sued , complain and defend in its corporate name . . . . N.C. G.S. § 55A

- 3

- 02 (a)(1) (emphasis added). It is crucial to our analysis that Hyatt III did not involve a sue and be sued clause. S ee generall y Hyatt III

, 139 S. Ct. 1485

. Instead, Hyatt III involved a n individual who misrepresented his residency as Nevada to avoid paying California more than ten million dollars in taxes. Id . at 1490

– 91. Suspecting Mr. Hyatt’s move to Nevada was a sham, the Franchise Tax Board of California conducted an audit, which involved sharing personal information with business contacts and interviews with Hyatt’s estranged family members. Id . Mr. Hyatt subsequently sued the Franchise Tax Board of California in Nevada state court for torts he alleged were committed during the audit. Id

. at 1491. On these facts, the Court overruled Nevada v. Hall , 440 U.S. 410 (1979), and held that “States retainF ARMER V
. T ROY U NIV
. 2022

- NCSC

- 107 Opinion of the Court
their sovereign immuni ty from private suits brought in the courts of other States.” 139 S. Ct. at 1492

. ¶ 16 In contrast, in Thacker v. Tennessee Valley Authority , 139 S. Ct. 1435 (2019) , the Supreme Court addressed a sue and be sued clause and its effect on sovereign immunit y. In Thacker the sue and be sued clause at issue was embedded in the Tennessee Valley Authority Act of 1933 , which stat es that , “the Tennessee Valley Authority . . . [ m ] ay sue or be sued in its corporate name.” 139 S. Ct. at 1438

. There the Court determined the sue and be sued clause “serv[ed] to waive sovereign immunity otherwise belonging to an agency of the Federal Government. ” Id . at 1440 (citing Loeffler v. Frank , 486 U.S. 549, 554 (1988) ). T he Court further explained that

“ [ s ] ue and

- be

- sued

- clauses

. . . ‘should be liberally construed’ ” and opined that those words “ ‘in their usual and ordinary sense ’

. . . ‘ embrace all civil process incident to the commencement or continuance of legal proceedings. ’ ” Id . at 1441 (citing Fe d

. Hous

. Admin

. v. Burr , 309 U.S. 242, 245

– 246 (1940)). But a sue and be sued clause is not without limits , and the C ourt explained that although a sue and be sued clause allows suits to proceed against a public corporation’s commercial activity, just as these actions would proceed against a private company, suits challenging an entity’s governmental activity may be limited

. Id . at 1443. In cases involving governmental activities in which a sue and be sued clause is present, immunity will only apply “if it is clearly shown that prohibiting the type of suit at issue is necessary to avoid graveF ARMER V
. T ROY U NIV
. 2022

- NCSC

- 107 Opinion of the Court
interference with a governmental function’s performance. ” Id

. (cleaned up). Thus, while Hyatt III

, 139 S. Ct. at 1492, requires a S tate to acknowledge a sister S tate ’s sovereign immunity, Thacker recognizes that a sue and be sued clause can ac t as a waiver of sovereign immunity when a state entity’s non governmental activity is being challenged. 139 S. Ct. at 14 43

. ¶ 17 The parties in this case disagree about how to characterize Troy University ’s activities. While Troy University asserts its purpose in North Carolina was to continue the governmental function of higher education, Mr. Farmer argues Troy University’s activities were commercial in natur e because they invo lved marketing and selling on - line educational programs. 3 While providing students with an education may be a governmental activity for the Alabama Government in Alabama , here Troy University was engaged in the business of recruiting students for on

- line

e ducation

— recruitment that occurred in North Carolina for students who remained in North Carolina. The complaint clearly alleges that while in North Carolina , Troy University engaged in marketing and recruitment. Mr. Farmer’s job was to help Troy Universit y carry out its commercial activities by recruiting military personnel in

3 It is difficult to posit how, absent a co operation agreement, memorandum of understanding , or joint venture with a North Carolina State agency, another S tate legitimately could engage in governmental functions w ithin North Carolina. Likewise , if the conduct at issue is not in some fashion controlled by the citizens of North Carolina, the entity cannot rightly be engaged in a governmental activity because in this State, “all government of right originates from the people.” N.C. Const. a rt. I , § 2. Nevertheless, we do not need to resolve this issue because, for purposes of the motion to dismiss, Troy University’s activities are alleged to be business activities.F ARMER V
. T ROY U NIV
. 2022

- NCSC

- 107 Opinion of the Court

North Carolina to enroll in and pay for educational courses. Because Troy University engaged in commercial rather than governmental activity, the sue and be sued clause is to be libe rally construed. See Thacker , 139 S. Ct. at 1441

. ¶ 18 In doing so, this Court concludes that when Troy University chose to do business in North Carolina , while knowing it w as subject to the North Carolina Nonprofit Corporation Act and able to take advantage of the Act’s sue and be sued clause , see N.C.G.S. § 55A

- 3

- 02 , it explicitly waived its sovereign immu nity

. Sossamon , 563 U.S. at 284 (a waiver of sovereign immunity cannot be “implied” and must be “unequivocally expressed”). ¶ 19 Troy University argues that under this Court’s precedent in Guthrie v. North Carolina State Ports Authority , 307 N.C. 522 (1983), a sue and be sued clause “is not always construed as an express waiver of sovereign immunity and is not dispositive of the imm unity defense when suit is brought against an agency of the State.” Id . at 538. But this Court’s holding in Guthrie is not inconsistent with our ruling today. Simply because something is not “always

. . . an express waiver of sovereign immunity” id ., does not mean it can never be a waiver of the same. Further more , Guthrie is distinguishable from the case at bar because Guthrie involved the application of the North Carolina Tort Claim s Act to a North Carolina agency, the North Carolina State Ports Auth ority, while the present case involves a sister state’sF ARMER V
. T ROY U NIV
. 2022

- NCSC

- 107 Opinion of the Court
entity registered as a nonprofit corporation in North Carolina to conduct business. See id

. at 524. ¶ 20 We also find additional support for Troy University’s w aiver of sovereign i mmunity in c hapter 55A, a rticle 15 of the North Carolina Nonprofit Corporation Act. Under this portion of the Act any foreign corporation operating in North Carolina must obtain a certificate of authority. N.C. G.S. § 55A

- 15

- 0 1 (2021)

. “A certificate of authority autho rizes the foreign corporation to which it is issued to conduct affairs in [North Carolina]

. . . ” Id

. § 55A

- 15

- 05 (a) (2021)

. Foreign corporations operating in North Carolina with a valid certificate of authority have “the same but no greater rights and [have] the same but no greater privileges as, and [are] subject to the same duties, restrictions, penalties, and liabilities now or later imposed on, a domestic corporation of like character.” Id

. § 55A

- 15

- 05 (b) (2021) . Taking this provision together with the United States Supreme Court’s holding in Georgia v. City of Chattanooga , we find that when Troy University obtained a certificate of authority to operate in North Carolina, it waived any sovereign immunity it had and agreed to be treated like “ a domestic corporation of like character.” 4 Id

. ; see Georgia v. City of Chattanooga , 264 U.S. 472 (1924).

4 Here a “domestic corporation of like character” i s a private university established through the Secretary of State’s office, as a nonprofit corporation, which does not enjoy sovereign immunity. State universities are incorporated by state statute. See e.g ., N.C.G.S. § 116

- 3 (2021).F ARMER V
. T ROY U NIV
. 2022

- NCSC

- 107 Opinion of the Court

¶ 21 In City of Chattanooga , the State of Georgia undertook construction of a railroad which ran from Atlanta to Chattanooga , Tennessee

. 264 U.S. at 478. In furtherance of the project, Georgia purchased approximately eleven acres, which at the time were located in the outskirts of Chattanooga, to use as a railroad yard. Id

. As the city grew, there was a demand for extending one of the prin cipal city streets through Georgia’s railroad yard. Id . at 479. The C ity began legal proceedings to condemn the land and named the State of Georgia as a defendant. Georgia contended that it had never consented to be sued in Tennessee courts and that sovere ign immunity applied. Id

. The Court determined that by “ acquir[ing] land in another S tate for the purpose of using it in a private capacity, Georgia [could] claim no sovereign immunity

. ” Id

. at 479

– 480. Specifically, when Tennessee granted Georgia permissi on to acquire and use the land, and Georgia accepted the terms of the agreement , the State of Georgia consented to be made a party to condemnation proceedings. Id . at 480. ¶ 22 T he same is true in this case. By requesting and receiving a certificate of authority to do business in North Carolina, renting a building here , and hiring local staff, Troy University , as an arm of the State of Alabama, consented to be treated like

“ a domestic corporation of like chara cter , ” and to be sued in North Carolina

. I d

. § 55A

- 3

- 02(a)(1). N.C.G.S. § 55A

- 15

- 05

.F ARMER V
. T ROY U NIV
. 2022

- NCSC

- 107 Opinion of the Court

¶ 23 The Court of Appeals also relied on this Court’s precedent in Evans ex. rel. Horton v. Housing Authority of Raleigh , 359 N.C. 50 (2004), to support its conclusion that governmental immunity bars Mr. Farmer’s suit against Troy University , h owever, that case does not apply here because it involved a different immunity question. In Evans this Court examined whether a munic ipal corporation could be sued in state court and explained that “[t]he State’s sovereign immunity applies to both its governmental and proprietary functions, while the more limited governmental immunity covers only the acts of a municipality or a municipa l corporation committed pursuant to its governmental functions.” 359 N.C. at 53 (citing Guthrie , 307 N.C. at 533). But here the question is to what degree does sovereign immunity apply to another S tate engaged in business in North Carolina. This case involves actions by a S tate other than North Carolina, while Evans involved the actions of a North Carolina municipal entity, the Housing Authority of the City of Raleigh. 359 N.C. at 51 (addressing the Housing Authority ’s failure to repair a
pro perty). Therefore, Evans does not apply and does not foreclose the conclusion we reach here, namely , that Troy University has explicitly waived sovereign immunity by engaging in business as a nonprofit corporation registered to do business in this
state. ¶ 24 Lastly, Mr. Farmer argued in the alternative that , when no other remedy exists, under the Tenth Amendment to the United States Constitution and a rticle I,F ARMER V
. T ROY U NIV
. 2022

- NCSC

- 107 Opinion of the Court

section 2 of the North Carolina Constitution, the State has the sovereign right to protect its citizens from sexual harassment and the other torts alleged in his complaint. Because we hold that Troy University waived its sovereign immunity and Mr. Farmer can pursue his claims against defendants, there is no need for this Court
to address plaintiff’s asserted violation under the North Carolina C onstitution. IV. Conclusion ¶ 25 While the United States Constitution requires S tates to afford one another sovereign immunity from private suits brought in other states , this privilege can be explicitly waived th rough a sue and be sued clause. See Hyatt III , 139 S. Ct. at 1492 (2019); Thacker , 139 S. Ct. at 1440 (2019)

. W hen Troy University entered North Carolina and conducted business in North Carolina, while knowing it w as subject to the North Carolina Nonprofit Corporation Act and its sue and be sued clause, it explicitly waived its sovereign immunity. See N.C.G.S. § 55A

- 3

- 02. Additionally, b y requesting and receiving a certificate of authority to do business in North Carolina, Troy University consented to be treated like “ a domestic corporation of like character” and therefore to be sued in North Carolina. Id

. § 55A

- 15

- 05 ; s ee City of Chattan ooga , 264 U.S. at 480. Accordingly, concluding that the doctrine of sovereign immunity does not bar Mr. Farmer’s suit against these defendants, we reverse the Court of Appeals decision and remand this case to that court for further proceedings consistent with this opinion.F ARMER V
. T ROY U NIV
. 2022

- NCSC

- 107 Opinion of the Court

REVERSE D AND REMANDED

.Justice BERGER concurring.

¶ 26 The f

ounding f

athers understood that state sovereign immunity was not absolute. In Federalist 81, Alexander Hamilton stated that “[i]t is inherent in the nature of sovereignty, not to be amendable to the suit of an individual without its
consent .” The Federalist No. 81 at 422 ( Alexander Hamilton ) (Gideon ed. 2001)

. The distinction between a governmental function and a commercial function plays an important role in clarifying the extent of Troy University’s consent to be sued in North Carolina. I concur in the result reached by the majority but write separately be cause I would have decided the case with greater emphasis on the proprietary actions by Troy University

. See Georgia v. City of Chattanooga 264 U.S. 472, 44 S. Ct. 369, 68 L. Ed. 796 (1924), and Thacker v. Tennessee Valley Authority 139 S. Ct. 1435, 203 L

. Ed. 2d 668 (2019)

. ¶ 27 At the founding, “both Federalists and Antifederalists saw the lack of state suability in the courts of sister states as the beginning point of their arguments,” thus it was assumed that a state could not be haled into the cour t of another state without consent. Ann Woolhandler, Interstate Sovereign Immunity , 2006 S up . Ct. Rev. 249, 259; see also Franchise Tax B d. v. Hyatt , 139 S. Ct. 1485, 1494, 203 L. Ed. 2d 768 , 776 (2019). The adoption of the Eleventh Amendment displayed t hat the “the Constitution was understood , in light of its history and structure, to preserve the States’ traditional immunity from private suits.” Hyatt , 139 S. Ct. at 1496 , 203 L. Ed. 2d at 778 (quoting Alden v. Maine , 527 U.S. 706, 724, 119 S. Ct. 2240, 2252, 144F ARMER V
. T ROY U NIV
. 2022

- NCSC

- 107 Berger , J., concurring
L. Ed. 2d 636 (1999)). However, state sovereign immunity may be waived by consent. Principality of Monaco v. Mississippi , 292 U.S. 313, 321, 54 S. Ct. 745, 747 (1934). ¶ 28 The U.S. Supreme Court held in Hyatt that “States retain their sovereign immunity from private suits brought in the courts of other States.” 139 S. Ct. at 1492, 203 L. Ed. 2d at 774 . Further, the Court concluded that “the Constitution assumes that the S tates retain their sovereign immunity except as otherwise provided[;] it also fundamentally adjusts the States’ relationship with each other and curtails their ability, as sovereigns, to decline to recognize each other’s immunity.” Id. at 1493 , 203 L. Ed. 2d at 775 . In short, a nonconsenting state cannot be sued by a private party in the courts of a different state. See id. at 1490 , 203 L. Ed. 2d at 772 . Thus, for a suit against a state to be maintained in the forum of a sister state, there must be consent to be sued. ¶ 29 In Thacker , the United States Supreme Court addressed how far a waiver of sovereign immunity extends when that waiver is premised upon consent via a sue

and

- be

- sued clause in a statute. 139 S. Ct. at 1438

– 39 , 203 L. Ed. 2d at 672

– 73

. Thacker involved the Tennessee Vall ey Authority (TVA). Id. at 1438

– 39 , 203 L. Ed. 2d at 672

– 73 . When Congress created the TVA by federal statute, it “decided . . . that the TVA could ‘sue and be sued in its corporate name.’ ” Id. at 1439 , 203 L. Ed. 2d at
673 (citing 16 U.S.C. § 831c(b))

. To determine the extent of the sovereign immunity waiver, the Court looked to the distinctions between commercial and governmentalF ARMER V
. T ROY U NIV
. 2022

- NCSC

- 107 Berger , J., concurring
functions, reasoning that “a suit challenging a commercial act will not ‘gravel[y]’

— or, indeed, at all

— interfere with the ‘governmental functions.’ ” Id. at 1442

– 44 , 203 L. Ed. 2d at 677 (quoting Federal Housing Administration v. Burr , 309 U.S. 242, 245, 60 S. Ct. 488, 84 L. Ed. 724 (1940)). ¶ 30 The Court concluded that “suits based on a public corporation’s commercial

ac tivity may proceed as they would against a private company; only suits challenging the entity’s governmental activity may run into an implied limit on its sue

- and

- be

sued clause.” Id. at 1443 , 203 L. Ed. 2d at 677 . In short, the Court decided that the
st atute subjected the TVA to suit challenging its commercial activities, putting the TVA “in the same position as a private corporation.” Id. at 1439 , 203 L. Ed. 2d at
672

– 73 . The Court did not decide whether the TVA might still have immunity from suits in volving its engagement in governmental activities. Id. at 1439 , 203 L. Ed. 2d
at 673

. Thus, the role of commercial versus governmental functions defines the scope of the waiver of sovereign immunity. ¶ 31 Similarly, Georgia v. City of Chattanooga describes the State of Georgia’s engagement in commercial functions, and as such, City of Chattanooga is helpful in analyzing the case before us. In that case, the State of Georgia was engaged in proprietary activities related to constructi on of a railro ad. 264 U.S. at 478, 44 S. Ct.
at 369. In doing so, Georgia acquired land in the outskirts of the City of Chattanooga to locate a railroad yard. Id. at 478, 44 S. Ct. at 369. Tennessee sought to use itsF ARMER V
. T ROY U NIV
. 2022

- NCSC

- 107 Berger , J., concurring
eminent domain power to condemn the land, and Geo rgia asserted that Tennessee could not interfere with its possession in the land because “Georgia ha[d] never consented to be sued in the courts of Tennessee.” Id. at 479, 44 S. Ct. at 370. ¶ 32 The U.S. Supreme Court determined that “[t]he sovereignty of Georgia was not extended into Tennessee. Its enterprise in Tennessee is a private undertaking . It occupies the same position there as does a private corporation authorized to own and operate a railroad, and, as to that property, it cannot claim sovere ign privilege or immunity.” Id. at 481 , 44 S. Ct. 369, 370 (emphas e s added). The Court stated that “[h]aving acquired land in another state for the purpose of using it in a private capacity , Georgia can claim no sovereign immunity or privilege in respect of its expropriation.” Id. at 479

– 80 , 44 S. Ct. at 370 (emphasis added). ¶ 33 The Court also concluded that “[t]he terms on which Tennessee gave Georgia permission to acquire and use the land and Georgia’s acceptance amounted to consent that Georgia ma y be made a party to condemnation proceedings.” Id. at 480 , 44 S. Ct. at 370 . A Tennessee state statute provided that the State of Georgia would receive all the same “rights, privileges and immunities with the same restrictions” which are given to the Na shville & Chattanooga Company. Id. at 481, 44 S. Ct. at 370. In addition, a decision of the Court of Chancery Appeals of Tennessee determined that included “among the rights and restrictions [is] the right to sue and be sued,” and state sovereignty was n ot offended because the relief only appl ied to Georgia’sF ARMER V
. T ROY U NIV
. 2022

- NCSC

- 107 Berger , J., concurring
“contracts as to the operation of the union depot situated in the city of Chattanooga.” Id. at 482, 44 S. Ct. at 371 (quoting E. Tenn., Va. & Ga. Ry. V. Nashville, Chattanooga & St. Louis Ry ., 51 S.W. 202 (Tenn. Ct. Ch. App. 1897)) . The U.S Supreme Court found that the decision of the Tennessee appeals c ourt bolstered the claim that Georgia consented to sue and be sued in Tennessee with respect to its railroad property. Id. at 482, 44 S. Ct. at 3 71. ¶ 34 The Court focused on the “private” and “proprietary” right s of Georgia when it entered Tennessee to do business and rejected Georgia’s contention that it was entitled to sovereign immunity in its commercial activities. Id. at 480

– 81 , 44 S. Ct.
at 370

. ¶ 35 Both Thacker and City of Chattanooga support the conclusion that when a state engages in a proprietary function in another state and consents by agreement to the sister state’s terms of doing business, it consents to suit and waives its

sov ereign immunity for those commercial activities. It follows that a state which engages in private enterprise activity and consents to the sister state’s terms of doing business, should be treated like a similarly situated private corporation for its

comme rcial activities while retaining immunity for its governmental functions. ¶ 36 Here, Alabama did not and has not waived all sovereign immunity in North Carolina. But as to its business activities in North Carolina related to the operation of Troy Univers ity for marketing and recruiting, Alabama has waived sovereignF ARMER V
. T ROY U NIV
. 2022

- NCSC

- 107 Berger , J., concurring
immunity. ¶ 37 Troy University sought and obtained a certificate of authority under the North Carolina Nonprofit Corporation Act, rented a building, and hired staff in order to conduct busine ss in North Carolina. Troy University subsequently engaged in marketing and recruiting activities in North Carolina to encourage potential students to pay fees and attend online courses. Troy University chose to engage in a “private undertaking” in a sis ter state. ¶ 38 To operate in the State of North Carolina, Troy University had to apply for and be granted a certificate of authority to conduct its business activities. The North Carolina Nonprofit Corporation Act provides that a foreign corporation ope rating with a valid certificate of authority to conduct affairs in North Carolina “has the same but no greater rights and the same but no greater privileges as , and is subject to the same duties, restrictions, penalties, and liabilities now or later impose d on, a domestic corporation of like character.” N.C.G.S. § 55A

- 15

- 05 (b) (2021). Similar in effect to the statute in City of Chattanooga , this statute declares that Troy University, as a foreign, nonprofit corporation within North Carolina, will receive the same rights, privileges, duties, restrictions, penalties, and liabilities as a similarly situated private corporation. Among the general powers afforded to nonprofit corporations within North Carolina is the power “[t]o sue and be sued.” N.C.G.S. § 5 5A

- 3

- 02 (a)

. ¶ 39 Having affirmatively acted to obtain the benefit of conducting business inF ARMER V
. T ROY U NIV
. 2022

- NCSC

- 107 Berger , J., concurring
North Carolina, and operating pursuant to the North Carolina Nonprofit Corporation Act, Troy University has consented to suit in this state for its commercial activities. Alabama has thus waived sovereign immunity related to the commercial activities of Troy University.Justice BARRINGER dissenting.

¶ 40 At issue in this case is whether a private party can sue a public university of the State of Alabama in the courts of this State without Alabama’s consent. The pivotal question before us is what does our Federal Constitution say about the sovereign immunit y of a state when sued in a sister state. The United States Supreme Court has spoken. Nonetheless, this Court misunderstands the extent of the holding in Franchise Tax B oard of Califo rnia v. Hyatt ( Hyatt III ) , 139 S. Ct. 1485 (2019) , thus rendering a misguided departure from the United States Constitution, as well as our own precedent. Alabama’s constitution explicitly states that Alabama cannot be sued. Ala. Const. art. I, § 14. And further, Alabama has not consented to be haled int o court in this State. I respectfully dissent. I. Background ¶ 41 Troy University is a public university in the State of Alabama with its main campus located in Troy, Alabama. Troy University is organized and exists under the laws of the State of Alabama. Al a. Code § 16

- 56

- 1 (2022). Plaintiff was employed by Troy University, although his office was in Cumberland County, North Carolina. Troy University hired plaintiff to travel “throughout the southeastern United States to recruit students.” ¶ 42 Plaintiff wa s allegedly harassed by other employees of Troy University at its Cumberland County office. After plaintiff reported the harassment “to the appropriate officials at Troy University,” he was allegedly suspended and then fired in retaliation. Plaintiff sued Troy University solely seeking monetary damages inF ARMER V
. T ROY U NIV
. 2022

- NCSC

- 107 Barringer , J., dissenting
Superior Court, Cumberland County, alleging (1) wrongful discharge from employment in violation of public policy, (2) intentional infliction of mental and emotional distress, (3) tortious interference with contractual rights, (4) negligent retention and/or supervision of an employee, and (5) a state constitutional claim under Article I, Section 19. ¶ 43 Troy University filed a motion to dismiss under Rules 12(b)(2) and 12(b)(6) arguing that, under the rece nt Supreme Court of the United States decision in Franchise Tax B oard of Califo rnia v. Hyatt ( Hyatt III ) , 139 S. Ct. 1485 (2019) , Troy University, as a public education institution of the State of Alabama, was immune from suit based on sovereign immunity. The trial court agreed and allowed the motion. After plaintiff appealed, the Court of Appeals affirmed the trial court’s dismissal of plaintiff’s claims. Farmer v. Troy Univ. , 276 N.C. App. 53, 2021

- NCCOA

36, ¶ 1. II. Standard of Review ¶ 44 “Our review of th e grant of a motion to dismiss under Rule 12(b)(6) of the North Carolina Rules of Civil Procedure is de novo.” Bridges v. Parrish , 366 N.C. 539, 541 (2013) . In reviewing a motion to dismiss, this Court considers “ whether the allegations of the complaint, i f treated as true, are sufficient to state a claim upon which relief can be granted under some legal theory.” Id. (quoting Coley v. State , 360 N.C. 493, 494 (2006) ). “Questions of statutory interpretation are questions of law andF ARMER V
. T ROY U NIV
. 2022

- NCSC

- 107 Barringer , J., dissenting

are reviewed de novo.” In re D.S. , 364 N.C. 184, 187 (2010). “We review constitutional issues de novo.” State v. Whittington , 367 N.C. 186, 190 (2014) (italics omitted). III. Analysis ¶ 45 The Constitution of Alabama states “[t]hat the State of Alabama shall never be made a defendant in any court of law or equity.” Ala. Const. art. I, § 14. Unlike other states which establish sovereign immunity by statute or common law, Alabama’s sovereign i mmunity is enshrined in its constitution. Ala. Const. art. I, § 14. “This immunity extends to [Alabama’s] institutions of higher learning.” Taylor v. Troy State Univ. , 437 So. 2d 472, 474 (Ala. 1983) (citations omitted). In this case, Troy University is a public education institution of the State of Alabama. Ala. Code § 16

- 56

- 1 . Yet plaintiff argues that either Hyatt III does not apply to Alabama in this instance or that Alabama consented to be sued in North Carolina. Neither contention is persuasive. A. Hyatt III controls the outcome of this case. ¶ 46 In Hyatt III , the Supreme Court of the United States held that a State may not “be sued by a private party without its consent in the courts of a different State.” 139 S. Ct. at 1490. Similar to this case, Hyat t sued the Franchise Tax Board of California in Nevada state court for intentional torts he alleges the agency committed during an audit. Id. at 1490

– 91; see also Franchise Tax Bd. of California v. Hyatt ( Hyatt I ), 538 U.S. 488, 491 ( 2003). The tr ial court initially entered a judgment awarding Hyatt overF ARMER V
. T ROY U NIV
. 2022

- NCSC

- 107 Barringer , J., dissenting
$490 million. Hyatt III , 139 S. Ct. at 1491. However, this judgment was eventually overturned based on California’s sovereign immunity. Id. at 1499. ¶ 47 The facts of Hyatt III are clearly analogous to the present case. Both defendants, Franchise Tax Board of California and Troy University, claimed sovereign immunity in causes of actions arising from alleged intentional torts. Id. at 1491. Hyatt moved from California to Nevada i n 1991, thereafter claiming Nevada as his primary residence on his 1991 and 1992 tax returns. Id. at 1490. In 1993, the Franchise Tax Board of California “launched an audit to determine whether Hyatt underpaid his 1991 and 1992 state income taxes by misrep resenting his residency.” Id. at 1490

– 91. This investigation led to Hyatt’s intentional tort claims. Id. ¶ 48 Also significant, Hyatt III explicitly overruled Nevada v. Hall

. Id. at 1490 (“We

. . . overrule our decision

. . . in Nevada v. Hall .” ) (citatio n omitted)

. The facts in Hall are similar to those presented by this case. The respondents in Hall were California residents who brought a tort claim in California after they suffered severe injuries in an automobile collision in that state. The other driv er was a University of Nevada employee. Hall , 440 U.S. 410, 411 (1979). Before the California state courts and ultimately the Supreme Court of the United States, Nevada argued that the Full Faith and Credit Clause of the United States Constitution mandated that California recognize the Nevada statute gov erning Nevada’s sovereign immunity in tort actions. Id. at 412

– 14. Nevada’s statute governing sovereign immunity limited “any award inF ARMER V
. T ROY U NIV
. 2022

- NCSC

- 107 Barringer , J., dissenting
a tort action against the State pursuant to its statutory waiver of sovereign immunity” to a maximum of $25,000. Id. at 4 12. The Supreme Court rejected Nevada’s argument, holding that when sovereign immunity or statutory limitations on waivers of sovereign immunity are “ obnoxious to [ ] statutorily based policies of jurisdiction,” a State is not required to recognize another State’s sovereign immunity or limitations on waiver. Id. at 424. ¶ 49 The Supreme Court overruled “this erroneous precedent” in Hyatt III . 139 S. Ct. at 1492. Hyatt III reasoned that “ Hall is contrary to our constitutional design and the understanding of sovereign immunity shared by the States that ratified the Constitution.” Id. In reaching its conclusion, the Supreme Court performed an historical analysis of sovereign immunity and determined that “[t] he Constitution does not merely allow States to affor d each other immunity as a matter of comity; it embeds interstate sovereign immunity within the constitutional design. ” Id. at 1497. In other words, whether to apply sovereign immunity is not a choice based on public policy. It is a constitutional mandate. ¶ 50 Just as “ Hall is irreconcilable with our constitutional structure,” id. at 1499, so too is this Court’s application of sovereign immunity. In the instant case, we have claims similar to those in Hall . The plaintiffs in Hall sued the University of Ne vada after one of its employees tortiously “ drove across the dividing strip and collided head

on with the plaintiffs ’ vehicle .” Br ief for Respondents, Hall , 440 U.S. 410 (No. 77

-F ARMER V
. T ROY U NIV
. 2022

- NCSC

- 107 Barringer , J., dissenting
1337), 1978 WL 206995 (U.S.), at *4 . The employee was conducting business in C alifornia, “pick[ing] up some television parts.” Id. Similarly, plaintiff here is suing Alabama for the tortious actions of employees of a public university allegedly conducting business in North Carolina. ¶ 51 The Court here is making the same analytical mistake made in Hall that the Supreme Court rejected. Rather than being based on the weight of public policy, see Hall , 440 U.S. at 425

– 27, sovereign immunity applies because of “our constitutional structure and

. . . the historical evidence showing a widespread preratification understanding that States retained immunity from private suits, both in their own courts and in other courts ,” Hyatt III , 139 S. Ct. at 1499. ¶ 52 Hyatt III controls the outcome of this case. Id. at 1492 (“States retain their sovereign immunity from private suits brought in the courts of other States.”). Alabama’s sovereign immunity is enshrined in its constitution. Ala. Const. art. I, § 14 (“[T]he State of Alabama shall never be made a defendant in any court of law or equity.”). Accordingly, Alabama carries its sovereign immunity into the courts of North Carolina. ¶ 53 Hyatt III grounded its reaso ning in the “historical understanding of state immunity.” Id. at 1498. According to Hyatt III , “ a t the time of the founding, it was well settled that States were immune under both the common law and the law of nations.” Id. at 1494 ; see also id. at 1499 (“ [T]he historical evidence show [s] aF ARMER V
. T ROY U NIV
. 2022

- NCSC

- 107 Barringer , J., dissenting
widespread preratification understanding that States retained immunity from private suits, both in their own courts and in other courts.” )

. ¶ 54 A review of the founders’ understanding of sovereign immunity anchors it n ot in interstate commerce, but rather in the ability of private citizens to recover money from a State’s treasury. As Hamilton wrote in Federalist 81:

The contracts between a nation and individuals are only binding on the conscience of the sovereign, and h ave no pretension s to a compulsive force. They confer no right of action independent of the sovereign will. To what purpose would it be to authorize suits against states for the debts they owe? How could recoveries be enforced? It is evident that it could not be done without waging war against the contracting state; and to ascribe to the federal courts , by mere implication, and in destruction of a pre

- existing right of the state governments, a power which would involve such a consequence, would be altogethe r forced and unwarrantable. The Federalist No. 81, at 318

– 19 (Alexander Hamilton) (J. & A. McLean ed., 1788). Similarly, in his now favorably cited 1 dissent in Chisholm v. Georgia , 2 U.S. (2 Dall.) 419 (1793) , Justice Iredell reviewed the status of sovereign immunity under the common law at the time of the founding and wrote “ t here is no doubt that neither in the State now in question, nor in any other in the Union , any particular Legislative

1 See, e.g. , Alden v. Maine , 527 U.S. 706, 715

– 16, 720, 727 (1999) ; Hans v. Louisiana , 134 U.S. 1, 14 (1890) (“[L]ooking at the subject as Hamilton did, and as Mr. Justice Iredell did, in the light of history and experience and the established order of things, the views of [Hamilton and Iredell] were clearly right,

— as the people of the United States in their sovereign capacity subsequently decided.”).F ARMER V
. T ROY U NIV
. 2022

- NCSC

- 107 Barringer , J., dissenting
mode, authorizing a compulsory suit for the recovery of money against a State, was in being either when the Constitution was adopted, or at the time the judicial act was passed.” Id. at 434

– 35 (Iredell, J., dissenting). Although the Court here properly acknowledges that Al abama cannot be haled into a North Carolina court without its consent, they do so without fully understanding the extent of the holding in Hyatt III

. Additionally, this Court improperly held that Alabama waived its sovereign immunity. B. Alabama did not waive its sovereign immunity. 1. Alabama’s Constitution prohibits waiver. ¶ 55 As an initial matter, the mere fact that Alabama was doing business in North Carolina does not cause waiver of its immunity under Hyatt III

. As noted above, Hyatt III overruled Nevada v. Hall , 440 U.S. 410 (1979). See Hyatt III , 139 S. Ct. at 1490, 1492 (“States retain their sovereign immunity from private suits brought in the courts of other States.”). Alabama’s Constitution expressly provides “[t]hat the State of Alabama shall never b e made a defendant in any court of law or equity.” Ala. Const. art. I, § 14 . Since there is no clear indication that Alabama has consented to be haled into North Carolina’s courts, this Court violates the Constitution of the United States by subjecting Ala bama to its jurisdiction.
2. North Carolina law strictly construes waiver. ¶ 56 Furthermore, u nder North Carolina law, when a statute grants a State entityF ARMER V
. T ROY U NIV
. 2022

- NCSC

- 107 Barringer , J., dissenting
the power to “ sue and be sued ” that power “standing alone, does not necessarily act as a waiver of imm unity.” Evans ex rel. Horton v. Hous. Auth. of Raleigh , 359 N.C. 50, 56 (2004) ; accord College Sav. Bank v. Florida Prepaid Postsecondary Educ. Expense Bd. , 527 U.S. 666, 676 (1999) (“[A] state does not

. . . consent to suit in federal court merely by stat ing its intention to ‘sue and be sued.’ ”) . This interpretation is predicated on the principle that “[w]aiver of sovereign immunity may not be lightly inferred and State statutes waiving this immunity, being in derogation of the sovereign right to immunity , must be strictly construed.” Guthrie v. N.C. State Ports Auth. , 307 N.C. 522 , 537

– 38 (1983); see also Orange County v. Heath , 282 N.C. 292,
296 (1972) (“The concept of sovereign immunity is so firmly established that it should not and cannot be waived by indirection or by procedural rule. Any such change should be by plain, unmistakable mandate of the lawmaking body.”); accord Petty v. Tenn

. - M o. Bridge Comm ’

n , 359 U.S. 275 , 276 (1959) (“The conclusion that there has been a waiver of immunity will not be lightly inferred.”). Accordingly, by “strictly construing” statutes passed by the General Assembly enabling a sovereign entity to “sue and be sued ” and refusing to “lightly infer” a waiver of immunity, North Carolina courts have repeatedly held that such language alone do es not waive a sovereign entity’s immunity. Evans ex rel. Horton , 359 N.C. at 56

– 57 ; Guthrie , 307 N.C. at 537

– 38; Jones v. Pitt Cn ty. Mem ’ l Hosp., Inc. , 104 N.C. App. 613, 616

– 17 (1991); Truesdale v. Univ. of N.C. , 91 N.C. App. 186, 192 (1988), overruled in part on other grounds byF ARMER V
. T ROY U NIV
. 2022

- NCSC

- 107 Barringer , J., dissenting
Corum v. Univ. of N.C. , 330 N.C. 761 , 771 n.2 (1992). Plaintiff points to no North Carolina cases holdi ng otherwise. ¶ 57 Plaintiff argues that Georgia v. City of Chattanooga , an eminent domain case, should control the sovereign immunity analysis in this case. 264 U.S. 472 (1924). However, City of Chattanooga , decided long before Hyatt III , addresses prope rty issues, not an intentional tort action seeking money from a state’s treasury, as in the present case. See id. at 478

– 80. Also, by my reading of Hyatt III , the Supreme Court did not address the distinction between commercial and governmental activity. H owever, this door may have been left open by the Supreme Court. ¶ 58 Likewise, Thacker v. Tennessee Valley Authority is also distinguishable. 139 S. Ct. 1435 (2019). Thacker interpreted the United States Code to determine whether Congress, by statute, waived sovereign immunity when it established the Tennessee Valley Authority. Id. at 1438. In Thacker , the Court analyzed how federal law, not state law, views a statutory sue and be sued clause. Id. at 1438

– 39. Additionally, the Tennessee Valley Authority is a federally created agency, not a sovereign state. Id. at 1438; 16 U.S.C. § 831. ¶ 59 It is fundamental to our federal system that “ [i] n the interpretation of the Constitution of the United States, the Supre me Court of the United States is the final arbiter ,” and “a ny provision of the Constitution or statutes of North Carolina in conflict therewith must be deemed invalid.” Constantian v. Anson County , 244 N.C.F ARMER V
. T ROY U NIV
. 2022

- NCSC

- 107 Barringer , J., dissenting
221, 229 (1956) ; see also U.S. Const. arts. III, VI. Alabama’s immunity from suit is predicated on the United States Constitution. Hyatt III , 139 S. Ct. at 1498. (“ Interstate sovereign immunity is

. . . integral to the structure of the Constitution. ”). ¶ 60 As a result, this Court cannot unilaterally im pose a waiver of sovereign immunity on Alabama. Rather, Alabama must consent to be haled into North Carolina courts. While North Carolina’s sovereign immunity from suits in this State may be judge

- made law, Corum , 330 N.C. at 786, according to Hyatt III , A labama’s immunity from suit in this State is based on the United States Constitution itself. IV. Conclusion ¶ 61 The United States Supreme Court has held that the United States Constitution renders Alabama immune from suits by private parties in this State

un less Alabama consents to waive its immunity. Hyatt III , 139 S. Ct. at 1490. Plaintiff has presented no persuasive arguments that this case somehow escapes that rule. Moreover, there is no clear indication that Alabama has waived its immunity. Therefore, to hold that Alabama has waived its immunity, through reasoning that is attenuated at best and certainly does not constitute a “plain, unmistakable mandate of the lawmaking body,” Heath , 282 N.C. at 296, violates both the United States Constitution and North Carolina’s own standard for waiver of sovereign immunity. Accordingly, I respectfully dissent. Chief Justice NEWBY joins in this dissenting opinion.