Argument of Speaker
Mr. Speaker: Justice Thomas has the opinion in 04-1618 Northern Insurance Company of New York verses Chatham County, Georgia.
Argument of Justice Thomas
Mr. Thomas: This case comes to us on a writ of certiorari to the United States Court of Appeals for the 11th Circuit.
Respondent Chatham County, Georgia -- Chatham County is where Savannah, Georgia is located, which for a variety of reasons is a notable city.
Chatham County owns, operates and maintains a drawbridge over the Wilmington River.
Petitioner Northern Insurance Company insured a boat that was damaged by the drawbridge.
Petitioner filed suit in admiralty against respondent in the United States District Court for the Southern District of Georgia.
Although respondent conceded that immunity under the Eleventh Amendment of United States Constitution does not extend to counties, it contented that it was nevertheless immune from the lawsuit under the, “universal rule of state immunity from suit without state’s consent”.
Relying on circuit precedent, the District Court concluded that sovereign immunity extends to counties that, “exercise power delegated from the state”.
On appeal, the 11th Circuit affirmed, relying on the same Circuit precedent.
In an opinion filed with the Clerk today, we reverse the judgment of the Court of Appeals.
Our cases have recognized that only states and arms of the state are entitled to immunity.
An entity qualifies as an arm of the state only if it satisfies the tests that we have applied in our sovereign-immunity cases.
There is no residual sovereign immunity that permits adoption of a broader test.
The question on which we granted certiorari presumes, as the county concedes below, that the county is not an arm of the state under our sovereign-immunity cases.
That concession dictates our holding that the county is not entitled to sovereign immunity.
We also hold that there is no distinct sovereign immunity from in personam admiralty suits.
We have historically applied the same immunity principles to admiralty cases as to other federal cases.
The opinion of the Court is unanimous.
