Court Opinion

ID: 9474422
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-05 04:56:50.968461+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T17:44:04.437757
License: Public Domain

J. SKELLY WRIGHT, Circuit Judge,
concurring:
I am pleased to join in Judge Bork’s fine opinion, particularly as I do not read it to suggest that a state’s characterization of a governmental entity can confer Eleventh Amendment immunity absent a binding and ongoing commitment to absorb a substantial portion of that entity’s operating deficit. As Judge Bork observes, however, the special facts of this case clearly indicate that such a financial commitment has been made. See opinion for the court at 226. Maryland has obligated itself to cover a substantial portion of WMATA’s operating deficit. See Md.Transp. Code Ann. § 10-205(b) (1985 Supp.). Virginia has earmarked the proceeds of a special tax for application to that deficit. See Va. Code § 58.1-1720 (1984).* I therefore agree with Judge Bork’s conclusion that WMATA has been a state instrumentality since 1980 and as such is immune under the Eleventh Amendment.

 I also note that under § i6 of the WMATA Compact, Virginia has agreed to absorb its equitable share of WMATA’s deficit. Thus given Maryland’s clear commitment, Virginia is plainly obligated to pay its share of the operating deficit through supplemental appropriations when its special tax does not cover its share of that deficit. I further note that Virginia has in fact provided such supplemental appropriations.