Galette v. NJ Transit, No. 4 EAP 2024 (Pa. Superior Ct., March 11, 2025) (Brobson, J.)
Appellee Cedric Galette (Galette) initiated a negligence action against Julie McCrey (McCrey) and Appellant New Jersey Transit (NJ Transit) in the Court of Common Pleas of Philadelphia County (trial court). NJ Transit is an “instrumentality” of the State of New Jersey under New Jersey law. N.J. Stat. Ann. § 27:25-4(a). Based upon this status, NJ Transit filed a motion to dismiss Galette’s suit, invoking the doctrine of interstate sovereign immunity. The trial court denied the motion, and, on appeal, the Superior Court affirmed, holding that NJ Transit is not an instrumentality or arm of the State of New Jersey and, therefore, is not entitled to the protections provided by sovereign immunity.
This Court granted allowance of appeal to determine whether the United State sovereign immunity is a complex doctrine that is not easily cabined into a singular concept. Many courts have suggested that the States enjoy two forms of sovereign immunity: the immunity expressed in Eleventh Amendment jurisprudence and a broader immunity that originated in the common law but transformed as applied to the States after the ratification of the Constitution, as explained by the High Court in Hyatt III. See, e.g., Tercero v. Texas Southmost Coll. Dist., 989 F.3d 291, 296 (5th Cir. 2021) (“The U.S. Constitution affords two types of immunities to [S]tates. The one the district court invoked—‘Eleventh Amendment immunity’—applies to suits between a state and a citizen of another state. The other is state sovereign immunity, which generally prohibits private suits against [S]tates (including the plaintiff’s home [S]tate).”) (citing Hyatt III); Beaulieu v. Vermont, 807 F.3d 478, 483 (2d Cir. 2015) (“Accordingly, there are two types of ‘sovereign immunity’ at issue here: (1) a particular species of sovereign immunity—Eleventh Amendment immunity from suit in federal court—and (2) the [S]tates’ broader general sovereign immunity against all suits.”); and Lombardo v. Pennsylvania, Dep’t of Pub. Welfare, 540 F.3d 190, 194 (3d Cir. 2008) (“We can discern two distinct types of state sovereign immunity: immunity from suit in federal court and immunity from liability.”). While these “forms” of sovereign immunity overlap, they serve differing primary objectives.
In Hyatt III, the United States Supreme Court unequivocally held that “States retain their sovereign immunity from private suits brought in the courts of other States.” Hyatt III, 587 U.S. at 236. Here, Galette filed a private suit under Pennsylvania law in a Pennsylvania court against NJ Transit, an entity that New Jersey created as an instrumentality of that State. Consistent with Hyatt III, we conclude that interstate sovereign immunity precludes Galette’s suit as it pertains to NJ Transit. Because the Superior Court erred in holding otherwise, we reverse the Superior Court’s judgment, which results in the reversal of the trial court’s order denying NJ Transit’s motion to dismiss. Consequently, NJ Transit is dismissed from this litigation. We, however, remand the matter to the trial court for further proceedings relative to Galette’s allegations of negligence against McCrey.
