A state-run agency operating across state lines could dodge lawsuits in your backyard, and the Supreme Court is about to decide if that’s how the law should work.
At a Glance
- The Supreme Court will decide if New Jersey Transit is immune from lawsuits in neighboring states for incidents that happen outside New Jersey.
- Two courts—New York and Pennsylvania—issued opposite rulings on this question, setting up a legal showdown at the nation’s highest court.
- If NJ Transit loses immunity, it could open the floodgates for more lawsuits against state agencies providing cross-border services, raising costs for taxpayers.
- The case pits state sovereignty against the rights of individuals to seek justice where they were injured.
- Millions of commuters and other state agencies providing cross-border services are watching this case closely.
The Legal Battle Over State Immunity
New Jersey Transit, one of the largest public transit agencies in the country, operates not just in New Jersey but also in New York and Pennsylvania. When accidents happen outside New Jersey, victims have sued NJ Transit in the states where they were injured. But NJ Transit argues it is an “arm of the state” and should be immune from being sued in other states’ courts under the doctrine of sovereign immunity. The Supreme Court will now settle whether that immunity applies.
This is not just a technical legal argument. The practical consequences are enormous. If NJ Transit can be sued in New York or Pennsylvania, it could face a wave of lawsuits that would drain resources and force taxpayers to foot the bill. On the other hand, if NJ Transit is immune, individuals injured by its buses or trains outside New Jersey could be left without a legal remedy, raising serious questions about fairness and accountability.
Conflicting Court Rulings Set the Stage
Two recent cases brought this issue to a head. In 2017, Jeffrey Colt was struck by an NJ Transit bus in Manhattan. He sued in New York, and the New York Court of Appeals ruled that NJ Transit is not immune from suit in New York. In 2018, Cedric Galette was injured in a collision with an NJ Transit bus in Philadelphia. He sued in Pennsylvania, and the Pennsylvania Supreme Court ruled that NJ Transit is immune from suit in Pennsylvania. This direct split between the two courts made Supreme Court intervention inevitable.
The Supreme Court has now agreed to hear both cases, consolidating them to resolve the national question. The outcome will affect not just NJ Transit, but all state-run agencies that provide services across state lines. The stakes are high for state budgets, commuters, and individuals seeking justice for injuries.
What’s at Stake for Taxpayers and Commuters
If the Supreme Court rules that NJ Transit is not immune from out-of-state lawsuits, the agency could face a surge in legal claims. That would mean higher insurance costs, more expensive settlements, and potentially higher fares or reduced services for commuters. All of those costs ultimately fall on taxpayers and riders.
On the other hand, if the Court rules that NJ Transit is immune, individuals injured outside New Jersey would have to sue in New Jersey courts, which could be inconvenient, expensive, and unfair for those who live and work in other states. This outcome would protect state treasuries but could leave victims without a meaningful remedy.
Legal experts are divided. Some argue that state agencies should be protected from out-of-state lawsuits to prevent forum shopping and protect state resources. Others say that immunity should not shield agencies from responsibility for harm they cause outside their home state, especially when those agencies operate and profit from cross-border services.
Broader Implications for State Agencies and Federalism
The Supreme Court’s decision will set a precedent for all state-run entities that provide services across state lines, including transportation, utilities, and more. If immunity is not uniformly recognized, states may be forced to rethink how they structure and operate their agencies, or risk being exposed to costly lawsuits in multiple jurisdictions.
This case is a classic clash between state sovereignty and individual rights. It raises fundamental questions about the balance of power in our federal system and the accountability of government agencies. For those who value limited government, the prospect of state agencies being hauled into court all over the country is a nightmare—unless you believe in holding government accountable for its actions, wherever they occur.
The Supreme Court’s decision will shape the legal landscape for years to come, and it will send a powerful message about the limits of state power and the rights of individuals in our constitutional system.
Sources:
Jurist: US Supreme Court to decide state immunity for cross-border transit agencies
