Opinion ID: 1211638
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 6

Heading: State law and State control.

Text: The other two factors are mixed, but tend to weigh towards a finding of no immunity. The state law defining the Ports Authority is somewhat contradictory: on the one hand, the Ports Authority is a body corporate and politic, and a public corporation [33] rather than a part of any existing state agency. [34] On the other hand, the Ports Authority is performing an essential governmental function. [35] Similarly, the degree of control maintained by the State is also mixed. Facts showing State control over the Ports Authority include the power of the governor to appoint the members of the Ports Authority board, [36] the requirement of State approval for the purchase or sale of real property, [37] and the exemption of Ports Authority property and income from taxation. [38] Facts demonstrating lesser State control include fixed terms for board members, [39] Ports Authority control over its chair, vice-chair and the establishment of its own rules and regulations, [40] the authority to enter construction contracts without taking competitive bids, [41] and a lack of supervisory control over the daily operations of the Ports Authority. [42] Additionally, unlike many state authorities, the Authority is not assigned to any executive department for administrative purposes and is not required to have its books inspected by the State auditor. [43] Finally, the Ports Authority may make contracts with the state [44] and may sue the State to enforce contracts made between the State and the Ports Authority. [45] After considering all these factors, we conclude that the Ports Authority is not an arm of the State. Our previous decision in Miller that the Ports Authority was entitled to state-conferred sovereign immunity does not demand a contrary conclusion. [46] A state court decision that an organization is an agency of the state for purposes of state-conferred immunity is different from a determination under federal law as to whether an organization is an arm of the state for Eleventh Amendment purposes. [47] Additionally, [w]hen the vindication of federal rights is at issue, a state court determination that the state intends an entity to share its immunity, while worthy of consideration among other indicators, does not substitute for an independent analysis under the federal standard to determine whether the entity should indeed benefit from the Eleventh Amendment's protection. [48] Finally, the Miller decision was not grounded in the same jurisprudential underpinnings of the Eleventh Amendment. [49]