Document ID: ./input/supremecourt_opinions/opinions/22pdf/22-506_nmip.pdf
Page Number: 16

Cite as:  600 U. S. ____ (2023) 

11 

Opinion of the Court 

Id., at 376–377.  Amtrak argued that it was not subject to 
the First Amendment because it was a corporation separate 
from the Federal Government.  See id., at 392.  Congress
had even specified in its authorizing statute that Amtrak 
was not “an agency or establishment of the United States 
Government.”  Id., at 391 (quoting 84 Stat. 1330).  Despite
this disclaimer, we held that Amtrak remained subject to
the  First  Amendment  because  it  functioned  as  an  instru-
mentality of the Federal Government, “created by a special 
statute, explicitly for the furtherance of federal governmen-
tal goals” of ensuring that the American public had access
to passenger trains.  Lebron, 513 U. S., at 397.  Its board 
was appointed by the President, and it had to submit an-
nual  reports  to  the  President  and  Congress.    Id.,  at  385– 
386.  Having been “established and organized under federal
law for the very purpose of pursuing federal governmental 
objectives,  under  the  direction  and  control  of  federal  gov-
ernmental  appointees,”  Amtrak  could  not  disclaim  that  it 
was “part of the Government.”  Id., at 398, 400. 

We reiterated the point in Department of Transportation 
v. Association of American Railroads, 575 U. S. 43 (2015).
There,  railroads  argued  that  giving  Amtrak  regulatory
power  was  an  unconstitutional  delegation  of  government
authority  to  a  private  entity.    Id.,  at  49–50.  We  rejected
that  contention,  noting  that  “Amtrak  was  created  by  the 
Government, is controlled by the Government, and operates
for the Government’s benefit.”  Id., at 53.  It was therefore 
acting “as a governmental entity” in exercising that regula-
tory power.  Id., at 54. 

That  principle  holds  true  here.    The  Secretary  and  the
dissent contend that because MOHELA can sue on its own 
behalf,  it—not  Missouri—must  be  the  one  to  sue.  But  in 
Arkansas, 346 U. S. 368, the University of Arkansas could 
have asserted its rights under the contract on its own.  The 
University’s governing statute made it “a body politic and 
corporate,” with “all the powers of a corporate body,” Ark.