”). The Commission is a Creature of the Compact, Possessing Reasonable and Carefully Delegated Enforcement Powers But what about a Compact Clause entity? Is it appropriate that such an entity has the power to sue a recalcitrant signatory state in “any forum” and in “any court of law” using “any proceeding” it chooses? The courts have given us some insight into that question, and the cases suggest, at least indirectly, that Compact Clause creations appropriately possess the power to sue a signatory state in whatever venue Congress gives as an option in the Compact. Entities like the Commission enjoy “a significantly different position in our federal system than do the States themselves.” Hess v. Port Authority Trans-Hudson Corp., 513 U.S. 30, 40, 115 S.Ct. 394, 130 L.Ed.2d 245 (1994) (<HOLDING>). As a matter of fact, “Compact Clause entities
holding that the eleventh amendment did not apply to a compact clause entity holding that congress could abrogate the eleventh amendment pursuant to the commerce clause holding that state did not waive eleventh amendment immunity by removing case to federal court holding that the supreme court of pennsylvania is a state entity for purposes of the eleventh amendment holding that the eleventh amendment applies in  1981 litigation