In the case of Port Authority Trans-Hudson Corp. v. Feeney, 1989, the United States Supreme Court ruled on whether or not a public entity could be sued under federal antitrust laws. The plaintiff, Thomas J. Feeney, was an employee of the Port Authority Trans-Hudson Corporation (PATH), a subsidiary of The Port Authority of New York and New Jersey which is jointly controlled by both states' governments. He filed suit against PATH alleging that it had violated federal antitrust laws by monopolizing commuter rail services between New Jersey and Manhattan. The Supreme Court held in favor of PATH with a unanimous decision stating that state entities are immune from such lawsuits due to their sovereign immunity as granted by the Eleventh Amendment to the Constitution unless they have waived this right or Congress has abrogated it through legislation specifically allowing for such suits - neither condition applied here according to Justice Thurgood Marshall who delivered the opinion for court. This ruling reinforced previous decisions regarding state sovereignty and immunity from certain types of legal action while also clarifying how these principles apply within complex structures like bi-state authorities operating across multiple jurisdictions.

In the dissenting opinion for PORT AUTHORITY TRANS-HUDSON CORP. v. FEENEY, Justice Brennan, joined by Justices Marshall and Blackmun, argued that the majority's decision to uphold a state law granting preferential treatment to veterans in civil service appointments and promotions was inconsistent with previous rulings on equal protection claims. They contended that the Court had previously held such laws unconstitutional when they disproportionately affected certain groups based on their gender or race. The dissenters believed this case should have been treated similarly because it disproportionately impacted women who were less likely to be veterans due to historical restrictions on military service opportunities for them. Furthermore, they asserted that while honoring veterans is an important government interest, there are other ways of achieving this goal without infringing upon equal employment opportunities for non-veterans.