that “an illegitimate interest cannot be legally prejudiced under the first Rule 19(b) factor.” Davis ex rel. Davis v. United States, 343 F.3d 1282, 1291 (10th Cir.2003). The court found that “Plaintiffs’ narrow interpretation of the term ‘legally protected interest’ inappropriately presupposes Plaintiffs’ success on the merits” and that “[sjuch an approach is untenable because it would render the Rule 19 analysis an adjudication on the merits.” Id. (quoting Davis v. United States, 192 F.3d 951, 958 (10th Cir.1999)); see also id. (explaining that “the prejudice inquiry under Rule 19(b) is essentially the same as the inquiry under [superceded] Rule 19(a)(2)(i),” now Rule 19(a)(1)(B), which concerns a party’s “claimed interest”); Republic of Philippines, 553 U.S. at 864, 128 S.Ct. 2180 (<HOLDING>). The Court must “accord proper weight to the
holding agencies of state government are part of the state for purposes of sovereign immunity holding that either the district court or the court of appeals must issue a certificate of appealability on both the merits and the procedural bar before we can consider the merits of a claim that the district court held to be procedurally barred holding that once the court of appeals recognized that the claims of the absent parties were not frivolous as part of the rule 19b inquiry it was error for the court of appeals to address them on their merits when the required entities had been granted sovereign immunity and explaining that the courts consideration of the merits was itself an infringement on foreign sovereign immunity holding that the sovereign immunity defense may be raised for the first time on appeal holding that the alien tort statute itself is not a waiver of sovereign immunity