The U.S. Supreme Court case Petty v. Tennessee-Missouri Bridge Commission in 1958 revolved around the question of whether a bi-state entity, created by compact between two states and approved by Congress, could claim sovereign immunity from suit in federal court without explicit consent from both states involved. The plaintiff was suing for damages following her husband's death during construction work on a bridge overseen by the commission. The court ruled that such an entity did indeed possess this immunity unless explicitly waived within the terms of its creation or operation; therefore, it could not be sued without its consent even though it engaged in operations typically associated with private corporations rather than governmental entities (like constructing and operating toll bridges). This decision upheld previous rulings establishing that interstate compacts are political entities subject to state sovereignty protections.

In the dissenting opinion for Petty v. Tennessee-Missouri Bridge Commission, Justice Brennan disagreed with the majority's view that a state agency was immune from federal jurisdiction under the Eleventh Amendment. He argued that this interpretation of sovereign immunity went beyond what was intended by the framers of the Constitution and could lead to states evading federal law. Furthermore, he contended that even if such an expansive interpretation were correct, it should not apply in this case because Congress had authorized interstate compacts like those involving bridge commissions; thus they should be considered as political subdivisions rather than extensions of state sovereignty. Therefore, according to Justice Brennan’s perspective, these entities would not be entitled to claim sovereign immunity protection against lawsuits in federal courts.