In the case of Coit Independence Joint Venture v. Federal Savings and Loan Insurance Corporation, 1988, the U.S Supreme Court addressed whether a federal receiver could be sued without its consent in state court for breach of contract. The dispute arose when FirstSouth, a federally insured savings and loan association that had entered into a real estate joint venture with Coit Independence Joint Venture (CIJV), was declared insolvent and placed under receivership by the Federal Savings & Loan Insurance Corporation (FSLIC). CIJV filed suit against FSLIC in Texas state court alleging breach of contract. However, FSLIC argued that as it was acting as receiver for an insolvent federal institution, it enjoyed sovereign immunity from unconsented suits brought in state courts. The Supreme Court ruled unanimously in favor of FSLIC stating that Congress intended to grant federal receivers such as FSLIC broad powers similar to those held by national banks' receivers which included protection from unconsented lawsuits filed at State level courts. This decision clarified the scope of authority granted to federal agencies acting as receivers during insolvency proceedings.

The dissenting opinion in the case of Coit Independence Joint Venture v. Federal Savings and Loan Insurance Corporation argued that the majority's decision to allow federal agencies, such as FSLIC, to remove cases from state court without any time limit was a misinterpretation of congressional intent. The dissent believed that Congress intended for there to be a 30-day limit on removals by federal agencies, similar to private parties under the general removal statute. They contended that this interpretation would promote judicial efficiency and prevent potential abuses of power by federal agencies. Furthermore, they disagreed with the majority's view that allowing unlimited time for removal did not pose significant practical problems or risks of unfairness towards litigants.