Three injured riders from Pennsylvania and New York asked the U.S. Supreme Court to reject New Jersey Transit's bid to escape two negligence suits on interstate sovereign immunity grounds, arguing that the transit agency is legally distinct from the State of New Jersey and should not be insulated from being sued in courts outside the state.

In separate briefs filed Wednesday, the plaintiffs contend that NJ Transit operates as a commercially autonomous, legally separate corporation and therefore should not receive the same immunity protections that shield the state itself.

The consolidated cases now before the Supreme Court challenge whether the agency qualifies as an "arm of the state" under 11th Amendment principles. According to the plaintiffs, granting immunity to NJ Transit would open the door for states to cloak commercially active entities in sovereign protection simply by designating them as state instrumentalities.

"At the Founding, a corporation liable for its own judgments was not entitled to sovereign immunity — no matter its function or provenance and no matter how much a state funded or controlled the corporation," Jeffrey Colt and Betsy Tsai of New York argued in their court filing.

Cedric Galette of Pennsylvania echoed that point in his own brief, writing: "We are unaware of any decision of this court extending immunity under the arm-of-the-state doctrine to a state-created entity that has sue-and-be-sued power and exclusive liability for judgments against it. This case should not be the first."

New Jersey, in a September filing, countered that all three elements of the Supreme Court's "arm of the state" test weigh in favor of immunity: the state's intent in structuring NJ Transit, the degree of state control, and the financial relationship between the agency and the state.

The Legislature expressly labeled NJ Transit a state "instrumentality," situated it within the executive branch, and delegated to it substantial statewide powers — including regulatory authority, the ability to enforce criminal laws, and the power of eminent domain, the state's brief said.

The state also pointed to statutory provisions exempting NJ Transit from local taxation and vesting ownership of its property in the state, characterizing these features as further evidence of sovereign status.

According to the brief, NJ Transit is subject to extensive executive oversight: the governor appoints all board members, may remove them at will and can veto any board action. That level of control, the state argued, aligns the agency with other politically accountable state bodies.

Financial considerations, the state added, reinforce the same conclusion. The Legislature routinely covers NJ Transit's significant annual budget deficits and closely restricts the agency's authority to raise revenue or incur debt independently.

The Supreme Court agreed in July to hear the consolidated cases after the Pennsylvania Supreme Court and the New York Court of Appeals reached opposite conclusions about NJ Transit's status. The justices will decide whether NJ Transit qualifies as an arm of the State of New Jersey for purposes of interstate sovereign immunity.

In Galette, the Pennsylvania Supreme Court deemed NJ Transit an arm of the state and granted immunity, barring a negligence suit brought by Galette, who was injured in a 2018 bus crash in Philadelphia.

In Colt, the New York Court of Appeals reached the opposite result, holding that NJ Transit was not entitled to sovereign immunity. That case arose from a 2017 incident in which an NJ Transit bus struck pedestrian Jeffrey Colt in a Manhattan crosswalk.

Representatives for the parties did not immediately respond to requests for comment Thursday.

Galette is represented by Michael B. Kimberly, Patrick G. Simonaitis, Kent Z. Steinberg, Erica K. Achepohl and Sophia Borne of Winston & Strawn LLP and Olivia Gabriel of The Gabriel Law Firm.

Colt is represented by Brian J. Shoot ofSullivan Papain Block McManus Coffinas & Cannavo PC and Jeffrey L. Fisher, Easha Anand and Pamela S. Karlan of the Stanford Supreme Court Litigation Clinic.

NJ Transit is represented by Jeremy M. Feigenbaum, Michael L. Zuckerman and Nathaniel F. Rubin of the New Jersey Attorney General's Office.

The cases are Galette v. New Jersey Transit Corp., case number 24-1021, and New Jersey Transit Corp. et al. v. Colt et al., case number 24-1113, in the U.S. Supreme Court.