# Alfred Morris v. Washington Metropolitan Area Transit Authority

> Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit · January 17, 1986 · 781 F.2d 218

URL: https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/9474422

## Case

- **Full name:** Alfred MORRIS, Appellant, v. WASHINGTON METROPOLITAN AREA TRANSIT AUTHORITY
- **Court:** Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit
- **Decided:** January 17, 1986
- **Citations:** 781 F.2d 218; 251 U.S. App. D.C. 42; 39 Fair Empl. Prac. Cas. (BNA) 1308; 39 Empl. Prac. Dec. (CCH) 35,824; 1986 U.S. App. LEXIS 21242
- **Precedential status:** Published
- **Opinion:** Concurrence by Wright
- **Judges:** Wright, Bork, Scalia
- **Cited by:** 160 later opinions in the Frix Law Library

## Citator (automated)

- No negative treatment found by the automated citator. That is not the same as a confirmation that the case is good law; read the citing cases.
- Full citator and citing cases: https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/9474422

## How later opinions describe it (automated extraction)

- holding that functional liability will be found “[wjhere an agency is so structured that, as a practical matter, if the agency is to survive, a judgment must expend itself against state treasuries, common sense and the rationale of the eleventh amendment require that sovereign…
- finding that a judgment against the Washington Metropolitan Area Transit Authority would directly affect Maryland and Virginia's treasuries because of their practical financial commitments to the entity
- recognizing Congress's “particularly active role in creating WMATA” and concluding that “[t]here seems no question that the United States could validly confer its [sovereign] immunity upon WMATA.”
- explaining that “each of the three signatories .., conferred] its .sovereign immunity upon WMATA” and that; section 80 of the Compact is a “partial waiver of immunity”

## Opinion text

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.

---

Source: Frix Law Library, https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/9474422. Public record. Not legal advice.