In the 1933 case of McGarrity, Administrator v. Delaware River Bridge Commission et al., the U.S Supreme Court ruled in favor of the Delaware River Bridge Commission. The plaintiff, McGarrity, was an administrator for a deceased individual who had died during construction work on a bridge overseen by the commission. He sought to hold them responsible for negligence leading to death under Pennsylvania's wrongful death statute. However, since both New Jersey and Pennsylvania created this bi-state entity (the commission), it enjoyed sovereign immunity from such suits unless explicitly waived by both states' legislatures - which hadn't happened here. Therefore, despite any potential merits of his claim regarding negligence or safety standards violation causing fatal injury at work site that he might have had if suing a private company or individual under state law; because he was instead trying to sue an interstate agency formed through compact between two states approved by Congress as part of its constitutional powers over interstate commerce matters - his lawsuit couldn't proceed due to their governmental immunity protection against being sued without consent.

The dissenting opinion in the case of McGarrity v. Delaware River Bridge Commission et al., 1933, argued that the Supreme Court should not have jurisdiction over this case as it was a matter for state courts to decide. The justice believed that the federal government had no right to interfere with contracts made by states or their agencies unless they were clearly unconstitutional. He also disagreed with the majority's interpretation of what constituted interstate commerce, arguing that building and maintaining bridges did not fall under this category because these activities did not directly involve trade between states. Furthermore, he contended that even if bridge construction could be considered interstate commerce, it would still be within a state's rights to regulate such activities within its own borders without federal interference.