complaint asserts retaliatory discharge “ 374, 391-92, 400, 115 S.Ct. 961, 970-71, 974-75, 130 L.Ed.2d 902 (1995) (noting in dictum that the statutory provision that Amtrak “will not be an agency or establishment of the United States government” “no doubt ... deprives Amtrak of sovereign immunity from suit,” but holding that Amtrak is “part of the Government” for First Amendment purposes (internal quotation marks and citation omitted)). Although certainly relevant to the issue of sovereign immunity, the Institute’s nonprofit corporate status is hardly dispositive. Relying on the Institute’s status alone would ignore the governmental nature of its responsibilities and the extensive control the government exerts over Institute operations. Cf. Lebron, 513 U.S. at 400, 115 S.Ct. at 974-75 (<HOLDING>). Indeed, the Institute has no role other than
holding that amtrak is an agency of the government  for purposes of the constitutional obligations of government holding that amtrak is part of the government for purposes of the first amendment because the government created amtrak by special law to further governmental objectives and retained authority to appoint a majority of amtraks corporate directors holding agencies of state government are part of the state for purposes of sovereign immunity holding that where the government inter alia retains for itself permanent authority to appoint a majority of the directors of a corporation the corporation is part of the government for purposes of the first amendment holding that because the government of puerto rico did not appoint any directors to aeelas board the plaintiffs failed to satisfy the third prong of the lebron test therefore aeela was not a government actor