Document ID: ./input/supremecourt_opinions/opinions/22pdf/22-506_nmip.pdf
Page Number: 53

6 

BIDEN v. NEBRASKA 

KAGAN, J., dissenting 

rooting  bystander.    MOHELA  was  “not  involved  with  the 
decision  of  the  Missouri  Attorney  General’s  Office”  to  file 
this suit.  Letter from Appellees in No. 22–3179 (CA8), p. 3 
(Nov. 1, 2022).  And MOHELA did not cooperate with the
Attorney  General’s  efforts.  When  the  AG  wanted  docu-
ments relating to MOHELA’s loan-servicing contract, to aid
him in putting forward the State’s standing theory, he had 
to  file  formal  “sunshine  law”  demands  on  the  entity.    See 
id., at 3–4.  MOHELA had no interest in assisting voluntar-
ily.

If all that makes you suspect that MOHELA is distinct 
from the State, you would be right.  And that is so as a mat-
ter of law and financing alike.  Yes, MOHELA is a creature 
of  state  statute,  a  public  instrumentality  established  to 
serve  a  public  function.    §173.360.  But  the  law  sets  up
MOHELA as a corporation—a so-called “body corporate”—
with a “[s]eparate legal personality.”  Ibid.; First Nat. City 
Bank v. Banco Para el Comercio Exterior de Cuba, 462 U. S. 
611,  625  (1983)  (Bancec).  Or  said  a  bit  differently,
MOHELA is—like the lion’s share of corporations, whether 
public or private—a “separate legal [entity] with distinct le-
gal rights and obligations” from those belonging to its crea-
tor.  Agency for Int’l Development v. Alliance for Open Soci-
ety  Int’l  Inc.,  591  U. S.  ___,  ___  (2020)  (slip  op.,  at  5). 
MOHELA,  for  example,  has  the  power  to  contract  with
other entities, which is how it entered into a loan-servicing 
contract  with  the  Department  of  Education. 
See 
§173.385.1(15).    MOHELA’s  assets,  including  the  fees 
gained from that contract, are not “part of the revenue of 
the  [S]tate”  and  cannot  be  “used  for  the  payment  of  debt 
incurred by the [S]tate.”  §§173.386, 173.425.  On the other 
side of the ledger, MOHELA’s debts are MOHELA’s alone; 
Missouri cannot be liable for them.  §173.410.  And as noted 
earlier, MOHELA has the power to “sue and be sued” inde-
pendent of Missouri, so it can both “prosecute and defend”