central purpose is to accord the States the respect owed them as joint sovereigns.” Fed. Maritime Comm’n v. S.C. State Ports Auth., 535 U.S. 743, 765, 122 S.Ct. 1864, 152 L.Ed.2d 962 (2002) (internal quotation marks and citations omitted). A We address first the most important factor- — whether South Carolina could be responsible for the payment of a judgment against the Retirement System and the Trust. A State treasury is responsible “where the state is functionally liable, even if not legally liable.” U.S. ex rel. Oberg v. Pa. Higher Educ. Assistance Agency, 745 F.3d 131, 137 (4th Cir.2014) (quoting Stoner v. Santa Clara Cnty. Office of Educ., 502 F.3d 1116, 1122 (9th Cir.2007)) (internal quotation marks omitted); see also Ristow v. S.C. Ports Auth., 58 F.3d 1051, 1053 (4th Cir.1995) (<HOLDING>). The plaintiffs argue that “the Retirement
holding that the prosecution must present sufficient evidence to support a reasonable belief that defendant committed a crime emphasis added holding that courts must look to the state that rendered the judgment to determine whether the courts of that state would afford the judgment preclusive effect holding that courts must cjonsider  the practical effect of a putative  judgment on the state treasury emphasis added holding that judgments for prospective relief that have an ancillary effect on the state treasury do not offend the eleventh amendment holding that the statute incorporated all the rights and obligations of the contract emphasis added