Page:Alabama v. North Carolina, 560 U.S. (2010) slip opinion.pdf/26

22

Second Report 41. A threshold question for all claims in those Counts, for example, is whether they "belong to the Commission, the Plaintiff States, or both." Ibid. Perhaps the States can bring them in their capacity as parens patriae, but as the Special Master noted "the parties have not adequately briefed this issue, and its resolution in this case is unclear." Id., at 42–43.

We think it was reasonable for the Special Master to defer ruling. We granted the Special Master discretion to "direct subsequent proceedings" and "to submit such re­ports as he may deem appropriate." 540 U. S., at 1014. He could have deferred filing any report until full factual discovery had been completed and all of the legal issues, many of which are novel and challenging, had been fully briefed, considered, and decided. Instead, he concluded that our immediate resolution of Counts I and II would facilitate the efficient disposition of the case; and in agree­ing to hear exceptions to his Preliminary Report and Second Report we implicitly agreed. His deferral of ruling on the merits of Counts III–V is part and parcel of the same case management, and we find no reason to upset it.

North Carolina takes exception to the Special Master's recommendation in his Preliminary Report to deny with­out prejudice its motion to dismiss the Commission's claims on the ground that they are barred by the Eleventh Amendment to the Constitution and by structural princi­ples of state sovereign immunity. The Special Master assumed for the sake of argument that a State possesses sovereign immunity against a claim brought by an entity, like the Commission, created by an interstate compact,