We will hear argument this morning in case 24, 1021,

Gillette v. New Jersey Transit Corporation, and the consolidated case.

Mr. Zuckerman.

Mr. Chief Justice, and may it please the Court,

decades ago, New Jersey exercised its autonomy to provide what it saw as an essential public good,

statewide public transportation system.

This case asks whether that system is most like a private business, locality, or state agency.

N.J. Transit's features answer that question decisively. The state gave NJ. Transit

transit rulemaking authority, subject to our APA. The state gave it law enforcement

power for all criminal laws anywhere in New Jersey. The state authorized it to exercise

eminent domain anywhere in New Jersey. The state gave the governor of veto over any

proposed board action. And the governor appoints all board members, most with advice and consent,

and has for-cause or at-will removal power over each.

On top of that, New Jersey owns NJ Transit.

NJ Transit has no property rights against the state.

And the state sharply limited NJ Transit's ability to raise

revenue, cut costs, or issue debt, effectively promising to cover its annual deficits, as it

always has. To be sure, as this Court wrote of the University of Arkansas some 70 years ago,

our legislature called NJ Transit a body corporate and politic. But just as that

can't change the answer under precedent, my friends have identified no basis to abandon precedent.

Instead, their lead alternative misconstrues original meaning and would convert this court's

inquiry into a game no state knew it was playing. That would render

...