Legal Document

547 U.S. 189 (2006) NORTHERN INSURANCE COMPANY OF NEW YORK v. CHATHAM COUNTY, GEORGIA No. 04-1618. Supreme Court of United States. Argued March 1, 2006. Decided April 25, *191 Miguel A. Estrada argued the cause for petitioner. With him on briefs were Theodore J. Boutrous, Jr., and Matthew D. McGill. Dan Himmelfarb States as amicus curiae urging reversal. On brief Solicitor General Clement, Assistant Attorney Keisler, Deputy Garre, James Feldman, Mark B. Stern, Michael Wiggins, John E. Crowley, Robert Bruce, Amy Wright Larson, Phillip Christopher Hughey. R. Jonathan Hart respondent. Emily Elizabeth Garrard David Bederman.[*] JUSTICE THOMAS delivered opinion Court. Petitioner Northern Insurance Company New York (Northern) filed suit against respondent Chatham County, Georgia (County), in District Southern Georgia, seeking damages resulting from an alleged tort committed by employees County. The granted County's motion summary judgment ground that was barred sovereign immunity. Relying Circuit precedent, Appeals Eleventh affirmed. We certiorari to consider "[w]hether entity does not qualify `arm State' Amendment purposes can nonetheless assert immunity a defense admiralty suit." 546 959 (2005). *192 I County owns, operates, maintains Causton Bluff Bridge, drawbridge over Wilmington River. October 6, 2002, Ludwig requested bridge be raised allow his boat pass. malfunctioned, portion falling colliding with Mr. Ludwig's boat. As result collision, wife incurred excess $130,000. Ludwigs submitted claim those their insurer, Northern, which paid accordance terms insurance policy. then sought recover its costs filing judgment, arguing Northern's claims conceded did extend counties, but contended it immune under "the universal rule state without state's consent." Defendant's Brief Support Motion Summary Judgment, Case CV403-099, App. 33a. agreed, relying Broward Wickman, 195 F.2d 614 (CA5 1952), conclude extends counties municipalities that, here, "exercis[e] power delegated State." Zurich Ins. Co. CV403-99, 77a. Circuit, bound follow Wickman affirmed.[1] acknowledged defense, would fail because, arm State. 04-13308 (Jan. 28, 2005), 83a, n. judgt. order reported *193 at 129 Fed. Appx. 602. concluded "common law has carved out `residual immunity,' protect political subdivision such 83a. review Appeals. II This Court's cases have recognized "is fundamental aspect sovereignty enjoyed before ratification Constitution, they retain today . except altered plan Convention or certain constitutional Amendments." Alden Maine, 527 706, 713 (1999); see Seminole Tribe Fla. Florida, 517 44, 55-56 (1996); Principality Monaco Mississippi, 292 313, 322-323 (1934). Consistent this recognition, no party asks us reexamine today, we observed phrase "`Eleventh immunity' is convenient shorthand something misnomer, neither derives from, nor limited by, Amendment." Alden, U. S., 713. A consequence recognition preratification source only arms State possess suits authorized federal law. See id., 740; Mt. Healthy City Bd. Ed. Doyle, 429 274, 280 (1977). Accordingly, repeatedly refused counties. Lake Country Estates, Inc. Tahoe Regional Planning Agency, 440 391, 401 (1979); 401, 19 (gathering cases); Workman City, 179 552, 565 (1900); Lincoln Luning, 133 529, 530 (1890). also Jinks Richland 538 456, 466 (2003) ("[M]unicipalities, unlike States, do enjoy constitutionally protected suit"). true even when, alleges "such *194 entities exercise `slice power.'" supra, 401. argues recognize distinct "residual" permits adoption broader test than apply context determine whether acting accordingly entitled immunity.[2] Respondent 28. But use term suggest conclusion; instead, referenced States' "residuary inviolable sovereignty" survived Constitution. Federalist 39, p. 245 (C. Rossiter ed. 1961) (J. Madison); Federal Maritime Comm'n South Carolina Ports Authority, 535 743, 751 (2002). Because may based upon identity county expansive arm-of-the-State test, subject unless State, delineated precedents, operating drawbridge. 756; 400-401. below immunity, both appear understood concession failure our precedent. 1 (recognizing rightly disclaimed because inconsistent *195 court's holding Vierling Celebrity Cruises, Inc., 339 F.3d 1309 (CA11 2003), Port Authority State); Appellee 04-13308DD (CA11), 13 (distinguishing part dealt question immunity); 8 (implicitly conceding jurisprudence). Moreover, premised conclusion "an purposes," (2005), presume case. presumption underlying are dispositive. alternative affirmance, personam bars arising county's core functions regard navigable waters. Recognition cannot reconciled precedents. Immunity admiralty, like other simply application rule" entire judicial Constitution embrace authority entertain brought private parties consent given." Ex parte York, 256 490, 497-500 (1921). resolved questions principles set cases, rather examining history jurisprudence specific admiralty. 754-769 (an heavily supra (plaintiff Fair Labor Standards Act 1938 claim), violation Indian Gaming Regulatory Act)). Indeed, *196 applied general principle bar city early held "afforded reason denying redress court wrong [had] been committed" 570. contendsand reliance Fifth Circuit's analysis heldthat reach limited, decision demonstrates govern instant F. 2d, 615. disagree. extended beyond "in equity" points out, involved substantive jurisdiction particular defendant. 498. precisely courts municipal corporations. U.S., ("[A]s rule, corporations, individuals, sued; words amenable process purpose compelling performance obligations"). distinguished between itwhether may, notwithstanding law, "redress one whom adequate jurisdiction," 566, corporationand it, Yorkwhether "give case where person property exerted," 566. In former circumstance, should principles, while latter lacks so. 570; 499-500, *197 502-503. contrast defendant generally within Court, inapposite, compels unprotected * failed demonstrate when operated suit. reversed. It so ordered. NOTES [*] Thomas S. Biemer Southeastern Pennsylvania Transportation affirmance. [1] Bonner Prichard, 661 1206, 1209 1981) (en banc) (adopting all decisions announced prior 1981, binding precedent Circuit). [2] unclear believes residual common-law unaltered 18 ("Chatham common pre-dates immunity"), or, appears believe, distinguishable drawn structure, Tr. Oral Arg. 16 ("What calls doctrine immunity"). either case, serve scope.

Classification Label: 7