Document ID: ./input/supremecourt_opinions/opinions/22pdf/22-506_nmip.pdf
Page Number: 14.0

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

9 

Opinion of the Court 

“reasonable 

issuing  bonds.    §§173.385(1)(6)–(7).    It  may  also  service 
for  doing  so. 
loans  and  collect 
§§173.385(1)(12),  (18).    Its  profits  help  fund  education  in 
Missouri: MOHELA has provided $230 million for develop-
ment projects at Missouri colleges and universities and al-
most $300 million in grants and scholarships for Missouri 
students.  Financial Statement 10, 20. 

fees” 

The  Authority  is  subject  to  the  State’s  supervision  and
control.  Its  board  consists  of  two  state  officials  and  five 
members appointed by the Governor and approved by the
Senate.  §173.360.    The  Governor  can  remove  any  board 
member  for  cause.  Ibid.    MOHELA  must  provide  annual 
financial reports to the Missouri Department of Education,
detailing  its  income,  expenditures,  and  assets.    §173.445. 
The  Authority  is  therefore  “directly  answerable”  to  the
State.  Casualty Reciprocal Exchange v. Missouri Employ-
ers  Mut.  Ins.  Co.,  956  S. W. 2d 249,  254  (Mo.  1997).    The 
State “set[s] the terms of its existence,” and only the State 
“can  abolish  [MOHELA]  and  set  the  terms  of  its  dissolu-
tion.”  Id., at 254–255. 

By law and function, MOHELA is an instrumentality of
Missouri:  It  was  created  by  the  State  to  further  a  public 
purpose, is governed by state officials and state appointees, 
reports to the State, and may be dissolved by the State.  The 
Secretary’s  plan  will  cut  MOHELA’s  revenues,  impairing 
its efforts to aid Missouri college students.  This acknowl-
edged  harm  to  MOHELA  in  the  performance  of  its  public 
function is necessarily a direct injury to Missouri itself. 

We came to a similar conclusion 70 years ago in Arkansas 
v. Texas, 346 U. S. 368 (1953).  Arkansas sought to invoke 
our  original  jurisdiction  in  a  suit  against  Texas,  claiming
that  Texas  had  wrongfully  interfered  with  a  contract  be-
tween the University of Arkansas and a Texas charity.  Id., 
at  369.  Texas  argued  that  the  suit  could  not  proceed  be-
cause  the  University  did  “not  stand  in  the  shoes  of  the 
State.”  Id., at 370.  The harm to the University, as Texas