Page:FOMBPR v. CPI.pdf/17

Rh And, “[t]his issue is predicate to an intelligent resolution of the question presented,” as it makes no sense to analyze whether PROMESA abrogates state sovereign immunity without first determining whether that immunity is implicated at all. United States v. Grubbs, 547 U. S. 90, 94, n. 1 (2006) (internal quotation marks omitted). Because I think the Court has a duty to pass upon issues that are fairly presented, preserved by the parties, and necessary to support its judgment, I would consider whether the Board has the immunity it asserts.

From the start, the Board has asserted only that it possesses what it has called “Eleventh Amendment immunity.” The First Circuit agreed, explaining that it “has long treated Puerto Rico like a state for Eleventh Amendment purposes.” 35 F. 4th, at 14. However, the plain text of the Eleventh Amendment applies only to lawsuits brought against a State by citizens of another State. And, because CPI is a resident of Puerto Rico, I can only assume that the Board and the First Circuit meant to refer to the sovereign immunity that is inherent in the 50 States. See Allen v. Cooper, 589 U. S. ___, ___ (2020) (slip op., at 4).

As we have explained, inherent state sovereign immunity reflects the original design of the Constitution. See ''Franchise Tax Bd. of Cal. v. Hyatt'', 587 U. S. ___, ___–___ (2019) (slip op., at 5–12). At the Founding, the “States considered