# Amicus Curiae Brief — Northern Ins. Co. of NY v. Chatham County > Briefs, arguments, decisions, and more. URL: https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/documents/brief%3Amicro_IA40385016_0103%3A08 ## Record - **Collection:** Supreme Court brief - **Document type:** Amicus Curiae Brief - **Published:** January 1, 2006 - **Citation:** 547 U.S. 189 ## Text QUESTION PRESENTED Whether an entity that does not qualify as an “arm of the State” for Eleventh Amendment purposes can nonetheless assert sovereign immunity as a defense to an admiralty suit. (I) TABLE OF CONTENTS Page CTs PD si ccvencdvsccucsececedescsers 1 PS toca ikicushishscksdud dene buds eebube ceeds 2 INES 5 dpctiindvcdcncnsanscessbeteusscese 5 Argument: A political subdivision that is not an “arm of the state” under the Eleventh Amendment may not invoke sover- eign immunity as a defense to an in personam suit in SE ). The FMC estimates that a significant percent- age of such ports (as high as 70%) are operated by mu- nicipal or county authorities. And the FMC frequently adjudicates privately filed complaints against such au- thorities, including complaints alleging unreasonable discrimination by MTOs in awarding of terminal leases for facilities built and maintained by public entities." ''The FMC’s regulation of MTOs includes the oversight of filed agreements, which involve the fixing or discussing of rates and which are immune from antitrust prosecution, see 46 U.S.C. App. 1703(b); the oversight of the publication of rates, regulations, and practices, see 46 U.S.C. App. 1707(f); and oversight of regulated conduct to ensure that MTOs do not engage in prohibited acts, including prohibitions against unreasonable preferences, unreasonable discrimination, and unreasonable refusals to deal or negotiate, see 46 U.S.C. App. 1709(d). 4 See, e.g., New Orleans Stevedoring Co. v. Board of Comm'rs, 29 Shipping Reg. (P&F) 1066 (FMC June 28, 2002), aff’d, 80 Fed.Appx. 681 (D.C. Cir. 2003); NPR, Inc. v. Board of Comm'rs, 28 Shipping Reg. (P&F) 1512(FMC Mar. 16, 2000); Ryan-Waish, Inc. v. Port of Houston Auth. ,28 Shipping Reg. (P&F) 236 (FMC Mar. 30, 1998); Southern Pac. Transp. Co. v. Port of Long Beach, 27 Shipping Reg. (P&F) 690 (FMC Sept. 5, 1996); James J. Flanagan Shipping Corp. v. Lake Charles Harbor & Terminal Dist., 27 Shipping Reg. (P&F) 923 (FMC July 30, 1997); Seacon Terminals, Inc. v. The Port of Seattle, 26 Shipping Reg. (P&F) 886 (FMC Apr. 14, 1993); Independent Pier Co. v. Philadelphia Reg'l Port Auth., 25 Shipping Reg. (P&F) 1381 (FMC Feb. 20, 1991); 27 In FMC v. South Carolina State Ports Authority, this Court held that Eleventh Amendment sovereign immunity extends to an FMC adjudication in a privately filed complaint against an entity that is an “arm of the State.” See 535 U.S. at 751 & n.6. The rule adopted by the court of appeals in this case could interfere with the FMC’s regulatory duties if political subdivisions that did not qualify as “arms of the State” claimed immunity from the FMC’s adjudicatory jurisdiction on the ground that political subdivisions, like the State itself in South Carolina State Ports Authority, are entitled to sover- eign immunity in admiralty. 3. Finally, a rule that political subdivisions may be immune from suit in an in personam admiralty action could impact the flow of commerce along the Nation’s navigable waters. As this Court observed in Workman, “{ijt cannot be doubted that the greater part, if not the whole, of the maritime commerce of the country is either initiated or terminated in ports where municipal corpo- rations exist.” 179 U.S. at 559. Granting immunity from admiralty suit to political subdivisions that construct, operate, or maintain ports, bridges, and other maritime Gulf Container Line, BV v. Port of Houston Auth., 25 Shipping Reg. (P&F) 1454 (FMC May 3, 1991); Chilean Nitrate Sales Corp. v. Port of San Diego, 24 Shipping Reg..(P&F) 920 (FMC Apr. 29, 1988); New Orleans S.S. Ass'n v. Plaquemines Port, Harbor & Terminal Dist., 28 F.M.C. 556 (1986), aff’d sub nom. Plaquemines Port, Harbor & Terminal Dist. v. Federal Mar. Comm'n, 838 F.2d 536, 539 (D.C. Cir. 1988); Wilmington Stevedores, Inc. v. The Port of Wilmington, 28 F.M.C. 24 (1985); Transportacion Maritima Mexicana, S.A. v. Board of Comm'rs, 25 F.M.C. 698 (1983); Louis Dreyfus Corp. v. Plaquemines Port, Harbor & Terminal Dist., 25 F.M.C. 59 (1982); Jacksonville Mar. Ass'n v. City of Jacksonville, 27 F.M.C. 149 (1984); West Gulf Mar. Ass'n v. City of Galveston, 22 F.M.C. 101 (1980); West Gulf Mar. Ass'n v. Port of Houston Auth., 22 F.M.C. 420 (1980). 28 facilities could lessen the confidence that vessel owners have in their ability to send their vessels and goods safely from one port to another, throughout the Nation. It is therefore important that the uniform body of mari- time law—which was designed at least in part to pro- mote the flow of maritime commerce, see Great Lakes Dredge & Dock Co., 513 U.S. at 546 n.6—apply fully to municipalities and other subdivisions, as it does to other entities. CONCLUSION The decision of the court of appeals should be re- versed. Respectfully submitted. PHILIP J. PERRY Se. General Counsel PETER D. KEISLER J. MICHAEL WIGGINS Assistant Attorney General si laa General GREGORY G. GARRE Depoimet ytd ee Assistant to the Solicitor RADM. JOHN E. CROWLEY, General Judge Advocate General MARK B. STERN ROBERT BRUCE ISAAC J. LIDSKY LT. CMDR. MATTHEW J. Fay Attorneys poet United States Coast Guard AMY WRIGHT LARSON General Counsel PHILLIP CHRISTOPHER HUGHEY Deputy General Counsel Federal Maritime Commission DECEMBER 2005 --- Source: Frix Law Library, https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/documents/brief%3Amicro_IA40385016_0103%3A08. Public record. Not legal advice.