Opinion ID: 4536379
Heading Depth: 4
Heading Rank: 1

Heading: City of Flint

Text: The City argues that it is entitled to Eleventh Amendment sovereign immunity because it was under State emergency management during the events leading up to and during the Flint Water Crisis. “Although municipalities typically do not enjoy sovereign immunity, ‘arms of the state’ do.” Appellant Br. (19-1425) at 36; Metcalf, 506 U.S. at 144 (“[A] State and its ‘arms’ are, in effect, immune from suit in federal court.”). We already foreclosed this argument in Guertin. The Guertin court held that the City was not acting as an arm of the State when it was under State emergency management and, accordingly, that it was not entitled to sovereign immunity. 912 F.3d at 936. The City acknowledges that Guertin’s holding is binding on this panel. Appellant Br. (19-1425) at 36 n.15. It makes its present argument “for the purpose of preserving the issue for further appeal,” if any. Id. We accordingly note that the City has preserved its argument and that we abide by our decision in Guertin.