Court Opinion

ID: 9641906
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-22 17:43:01.701346+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T09:48:51.447695
License: Public Domain

FERREN, Associate Judge,
concurring:
I concur in Chief Judge Newman’s opinion for the court. I write separately, however, to clarify an ambiguity. The opinion of the court states at the beginning of Part II:
Section 4 of the Compact expressly establishes WMATA as an agency of each sovereign signatory to the Compact. As such, WMATA contends it is clothed with the sovereign immunity granted by the eleventh amendment to its parent states. Cf. Lake County Estates, Inc. v. Tahoe *908Regional Planning Agency, 440 U.S. 391 [, 99 S.Ct. 1171, 59 L.Ed.2d 401] (1979).
I understand this statement to mean that we assume solely for the sake of argument — we do not decide — that WMATA is entitled to sovereign immunity pursuant to the guidelines in Lake County Estates, Inc., supra.