Please enter your email to continue

U.S. Sovereign Immunity Map

OVERVIEW

In the United States, U.S. states and certain of their instrumentalities, including state government investment and pension funds, enjoy sovereign rights and protections. This survey provides a high-level summary of the sovereign immunity applicable to each of the 50 United States derived from their respective state laws with respect to contract claims. In addition, U.S. states are also entitled to immunity under the Eleventh Amendment to the U.S. Constitution, which provides that a state cannot be sued outside of its home state courts without its consent.

Within each state, specific investment and pension funds may also be subject to more specific laws or policies that are not reflected here. For example, state governments often enjoy greater immunity than municipal governments; but a pension system established to invest funds on behalf of municipal government employees could be constituted as a state agency and entitled to the same level of immunity as the state government. State laws may also include requirements on procedure, time periods, and venues for bringing claims that are not summarized below.

DISCLAIMER

This summary is as of the date first published, and we disclaim any obligation to update it. We are not licensed to practice in every state. You should consult with your own counsel for legal advice. Using this summary does not create an attorney-client relationship. Last updated January 17th, 2026, 5:03PM EST.

Sovereign Immunity Analysis in Subscription Credit Facilities

Subscription credit facilities (a "Facility") are a popular form of financing for private equity and similar investment funds ("Funds").

Sovereign Immunity in Subscription Credit Facilities: UK

Government pension plans, state endowment funds, sovereign wealth funds and other arms of sovereign states are often investors in funds which borrow under subscription credit...

Managing Sovereign Immunity Risk on a Transaction – What Commercial Parties Need to Know

State involvement in commercial transactions continues to increase and remains an area of distinct legal risk for commercial parties.

Oregon

Oregon statutorily waives the sovereign immunity defense for contract claims. Or. Rev. Stat. § 30.320 (2023). The statute waiving the state’s immunity also waives the immunity of counties but not of other local governmental entities.

Missouri

The Missouri Supreme Court has held that the state is not protected by sovereign immunity when entering into a contract. Similarly, local governmental entities are not protected by governmental immunity in contract disputes. S. DiCarlo Const. Co., Inc. v. State, 485 S.W.2d 52, 54 (Mo. 1972); Kunzie v. City of Olivette, 184 S.W.3d 570, 575 (Mo. 2006).

Montana

Montana statutorily waives the sovereign immunity defense for contract claims. Mont. Code Ann. § 18-1-404 (2024). The district courts of the state of Montana have exclusive original jurisdiction of any such claim, Id. § 18-1-401, but New York courts have asserted jurisdiction over contract claims involving the Montana Board of Investments. See Deutsche Bank Sec., Inc. v. Montana Board of Inv., 850 N.E.2d 1140 (NY 2006).

Nebraska

Nebraska statutorily waives the sovereign immunity defense for contract claims, but the claim must first be filed with the state’s Risk Manager within the Department of Administrative Services. After investigating the claim and making a finding, claims recommended for payment in excess of $50,001.00 must be approved by the state legislature. Neb. Rev. Stat. §§ 25-21,206, 81-8,300 et seq. (2025).

Nevada

Nevada statutorily waives the sovereign immunity defense for contract claims with respect to the State and all political subdivisions of the State. Nev. Rev. Stat. § 41.031 (2024).

New Hampshire

New Hampshire statutorily waives the sovereign immunity defense for contract claims. N.H. Rev. Stat. Ann. § 491:8 (2025). Similarly, New Hampshire courts have held that local governmental entities are not protected by governmental immunity in contract disputes. Great Lakes Aircraft Co., Inc. v. City of Claremont, 608 A.2d 840 (N.H. 1992).

New Jersey

New Jersey statutorily waives the sovereign immunity defense for contract claims. N.J. Stat. Ann. § 59:13-3 (2024). Similarly, New Jersey courts have held that local governmental entities are not protected by governmental immunity in contract disputes. Frank v. Bd. of Educ. of Jersey City, 90 N.J.L. 273 (N.J. 1917).

New Mexico

New Mexico statutorily waives the sovereign immunity defense for contract claims with respect to the state, municipalities, and other local governmental entities. N.M. Stat. Ann. §§ 37-1-23—24 (2024).

New York

New York statutorily waives the sovereign immunity defense for contract claims with respect to both the state and units of local government, but the Court of Claims has exclusive jurisdiction over such claims. N.Y. Ct. Cl. Act §§ 8—9 (2025). See also McCrink v. City of New York, 71 N.E.2d 419 (N.Y. 1947).

North Carolina

The North Carolina Supreme Court has held that the state is not protected by sovereign immunity when entering into a contract. Smith v. State, 222 S.E.2d 412, 423–24 (N.C. 1976). Similarly, local governmental entities are not protected by governmental immunity in contract disputes. Wray v. City of Greensboro, 802 S.E.2d 894 (N.C. 2017).

North Dakota

North Dakota statutorily waives the sovereign immunity defense for contract claims. N.D. Cent. Code § 32-12-02 (2025). In Kitto v. Minot Park Dist., the Supreme Court of North Dakota abolished the doctrine of governmental immunity while reserving the legislature’s right to limit the liability of political subdivisions of the state. 224 N.W.2d 795 (N.D. 1974). The legislature responded by enacting N.D. Cent. Code § 32-12.1-03 (2025), which provides for limited tort liability. The state has not enacted limitations on political subdivisions’ liabilities with respect to contracts.

Ohio

Ohio statutorily waives the sovereign immunity defense for contract claims, but the Court of Claims has exclusive jurisdiction over such claims unless the state has “previously consented to be sued.” Ohio Rev. Code Ann. § 2743.02(A)(1) (2025). Contractual claims against state entities that have previously consented to being sued may be brought in the applicable courts of common pleas, which are state courts of general jurisdiction. See Martin v. Ohio Turnpike, 2002 Ohio 3523 (Ohio Ct. of Cl. 2002); GLA Water Mgt. v. Univ. of Toledo, 963 N.E.2d 207 (Ohio Ct. App. 2011). Generally, local governmental entities are not protected by governmental immunity in contract disputes, and Ohio courts of common pleas have original jurisdiction over contractual claims against local government entities. Ohio Rev. Code § 2743.01 (2025); Burr v. Board of County Comm'rs of Stark Cnty, 491 N.E.2d 1101 (Ohio 1986).

Oklahoma

The Supreme Court of Oklahoma has held that the state waives the sovereign immunity defense for contract claims. State Bd. of Pub. Aff. v. Principal Funding Corp., 542 P.2d 503 (Okla. 1975). Oklahoma statutes provide that counties and municipalities are established as bodies corporate and politic with the power to sue and be sued, and as such are not entitled to governmental immunity. Ok. Stat. tit. 19 § 1 (2025); Ok. Stat. tit. 11 § 22-101 (2025).

Mississippi

The Mississippi Supreme Court has held that the state and its political subdivisions are not protected by sovereign immunity from a dispute based on the express terms of a contract. Churchill vs. Pearl River Basin Dev. Dist., 619 So.2d 900, 903 (Miss. 1993). Mississippi courts have also held that the Mississippi Tort Claims Act (MTCA) applies to contract-related disputes involving government entities. City of Jackson v. Estate of Stewart ex rel. Womack, 908 So.2d 703 (Miss. 2005). The MTCA grants limited immunity to the state and its political subdivisions for breach of implied term or condition of any warranty or contract; however, the state legislature has provided a limited waiver of this immunity protection by setting maximum amounts on liability for claims against a governmental entity. Miss. Code. Ann. §§ 11-46-5, 11-46-15 (2024).

Pennsylvania

While Pennsylvania waives immunity from contract claims entered pursuant to the Commonwealth Procurement Code, the Commonwealth Procurement Code expressly precludes its application to the investment of funds. 62 Pa. Cons. Stat. §§ 1702, 102(f) (2024). In Telwell Inc., v. Pub. Sch. Emp. Ret. Sys., the court held in a breach of contract claim based on a loan that the Board of Claims did not have jurisdiction, and in accordance with Article I, Section 11 of the Pennsylvania Constitution, the Public School Employees' Retirement System (PSERS) was entitled to the sovereign immunity defense. 88 A.3d 1079 (Pa. Commw. Ct. 2014). Therefore, a state entity likely has the defense of sovereign immunity against contract claims based on contracts for the investments of funds. Local governmental entities are not protected by governmental immunity in contract disputes. Ayala v. Philadelphia Bd. of Pub. Educ., 453 Pa. 584 (1973).

Rhode Island

Rhode Island has statutorily waived sovereign immunity in certain contexts, including generally under the State Purchases Act. 37 R.I. Gen. Laws § 37-2-48 (2024). Therefore, whether an investment contract is subject to a waiver depends on whether it was procured under the State Purchases Act or some other authority. Local government entities, as extensions of the state, are also generally protected under the sovereign immunity doctrine, unless implicitly or expressly waived by statute. Pellegrino v. Rhode Island Ethics Com'n, 788 A.2d 1119 (R.I. 2002).

South Carolina

The South Carolina Supreme Court has held that statutory authority to enter into contracts can be construed as statutory waiver of sovereign immunity, but each such statute must be individually examined. Unisys Corp. v. South Carolina Budget and Control Bd. Div. of Gen. Serv. Info. Tech. Mgmt. Off., 551 S.E.2d 263 (S.C. 2001). As extensions of the state, local government entities are generally immune from suit unless expressly waived by statute. Health Promotion Specialists, LLC v. South Carolina Bd. of Dentistry, 743 S.E.2d 808 (S.C. 2013).

South Dakota

The South Dakota Supreme Court has held that the state is not protected by sovereign immunity when entering into a contract. Sisney v. Reisch, 754 N.W.2d 813 (S.D. 2008). Claims must be brought before the Office of the Commissioner of Claims, who then appoints a circuit judge to act on the claim. S.D. Codified Laws § 21-32-1 et seq (2025). Local governmental entities are not protected by governmental immunity in contract disputes. Blue Fox Bar, Inc. v. City of Yankton, 424 N.W.2d 915 (S.D. 1988).

Tennessee

Article I, Section 17 of the Tennessee Constitution states that “suits may be brought against the State in such manner and in such courts as the legislature may by law direct.” The legislature established the Tennessee Claims Commission and granted it the exclusive right to hear contract claims against the state. Tenn. Code Ann. §§ 9-8-301 et seq (2024). Local governmental entities are not protected by governmental immunity in contract disputes, and the General Assembly has not limited a municipality’s liability for breach of contract. While the Tennessee Governmental Tort Liability Act applies to disputes against counties, municipalities, and other local government entities, it does not apply to contract-based disputes, only tort claims. Tenn. Code Ann. § 29-20-201 (2024).

Texas

Generally, state entities in Texas enjoy protection from contract claims under the sovereign immunity defense (immunity from suit) unless expressly waived by the state legislature. Fed. Sign v. Texas S. Univ., 951 S.W.2d 401 (Tex. 1997). The legislature created the State Office of Administrative Hearings (SOAH) to address certain breach of contract cases involving the state. Whether an investment contract would fall under the jurisdiction of the SOAH is untested, but at least one Texas retirement system is expressly excluded from SOAH’s jurisdiction: the Texas Permanent School Fund. Tex. Educ. Code Ann. § 43.056 (West 2024). The legislature has statutorily waived local governmental entities’ immunity from suit in contract claims. Tex. Loc. Gov‘t Code Ann. § 271.152 (West 2024).

Utah

Utah statutorily waives the sovereign immunity defense for contract claims with respect to the state and local governmental entities. Utah Code Ann. § 63G-7-301(1)(a) (2025).

Vermont

The Vermont Supreme Court held that the legislature may waive sovereign immunity by statute. Jacobs v. State Tchr. Ret. Sys. of Vt., 816 A.2d 517 (Vt. 2002). The legislature passed a series of waivers of tort immunity under the Vermont Tort Claims Act (Vt. Stat. Ann. tit. 12 § 5601 (2025)), but the legislature has not passed a waiver applicable to the Vermont Pension Investment Commission specifically or contract claims generally.

Virginia

The Virginia Supreme Court abolished the sovereign immunity defense for contract claims with respect to the state and local governmental entities. Wiecking v. Allied Medical Supply Corp., 391 S.E.2d 258 (Va. 1990).

Washington

Washington’s Constitution provides a broad waiver of the state’s sovereign immunity and requires that any claim must be brought in the superior court. Wash. Const. Art. IV, § 20. Local governmental entities are not protected by governmental immunity in contract disputes. Wilson v. City of Seattle, 863 P.2d 1336 (Wash. 1993)

West Virginia

While West Virginia’s Constitution asserts the state’s sovereign immunity, the legislature established the West Virginia Legislative Claims Commission and granted it the exclusive jurisdiction over claims against state entities. W. Va. Code §14-2-13 (2025). The Commission only makes recommendations. Its recommendations are not binding and can be rejected or disapproved. Id. § 14-2-1. Local governmental entities are not protected by governmental immunity in contract disputes. Higginbotham v. City of Charleston, 157 W.Va. 724 (1974) (overruled on other grounds, 237 S.E.2d 504 (1977)).

Wyoming

Wyoming has statutorily waived sovereign immunity for contact claims with respect to the state and local governmental entities, except to the extent immunity is reserved in the underlying contract. Wyo. Stat. Ann. § 1-39-104 (2024). Therefore, any reservation of immunity in an investment contract would allow a governmental investor to assert sovereign immunity in defense of a contract claim.

Hawaii

Haw. Rev. Stat. § 661-1 (2024). Local governmental entities are not protected by governmental immunity in contract disputes. Kahale v. City & Cnty of Honolulu, 90 P.3d 233 (Haw. 2004).

Alaska

Alaska’s Constitution waives the state’s sovereign immunity and requires the legislature to establish procedures for such suits. Alaska Const. art. 2, § 21. In turn, the state’s Code of Civil procedure provides that (i) any person with a contract claim against the state may bring an action in state court, Alaska Stat. § 09.50.250 (2025), and (ii) that any municipality and any public corporation established thereby may are subject to suit for breach of contract. Alaska Stat. § 09.65.070 (2025). 

Arizona

Arizona statutorily waives the sovereign immunity defense for contract claims, and any person with a contract claim against the state or any other public entity may bring an action in state court. Ariz. Rev. Stat. Ann. §§ 12-820.01, 12-821 (2025). Therefore, local governmental entities are also not protected by governmental immunity in contract disputes.

Arkansas

Arkansas strictly applies the doctrine of sovereign immunity, prohibiting Arkansas courts from exercising jurisdiction over any claims against the state, including contractual claims. Ark. Const. art. 5, § 20. The Arkansas State Claims Commission acts as a non-judicial forum for claims against the state. Ark. Code Ann. § 19-10-204 (2024). The Commission’s statute, however, expressly excludes jurisdiction over claims arising out of the Arkansas Public Employees' Retirement System Act. Ark. Code Ann. § 19-10-204(b)(1)(A)(i)(d) (2024). Local governmental entities are not protected by governmental immunity in contract disputes. Bankston v. Pulaski County School Dist., 665 S.W.2d 859 (1984).

California

California has enacted a broad statutory waiver of the sovereign immunity defense for both state entities and local public entities, including contractual claims for money or other damages. In order for the waiver to be effective, a claim must be presented to the applicable public entity, in accordance with Cal Gov’t § 810-945, prior to filing suit. Depending on the defendant, different notice provisions may apply. The County Employees’ Retirement Law provides, with respect to county retirement systems, that “money in the fund . . . and any property purchased for investment purposes . . . are not subject to execution or any other process of court . . . “ Cal. Gov’t Code § 31452. Therefore, some county retirement systems have taken the position that they may assert the sovereign immunity defense in a breach of contract action.

Colorado

The Colorado Supreme Court has held that the state waives its immunity from suit by entering into a contract. Ace Flying Serv., Inc. v. Colo. Dep't of Agric., 314 P.2d 278 (Colo. 1957). The Court has, however, precluded specific performance of the contract as a remedy. Wheat Ridge Urban Renewal Authority v. Cornerstone Group XXII, L.L.C., 176 P.3d 737 (Colo. 2007). Similarly, local governmental entities are not protected by governmental immunity in contract disputes. Spaur v. City of Greeley, 372 P.2d 730 (Colo. 1962).

Connecticut

Claims against the state are generally prohibited under the sovereign immunity doctrine unless the Claims Commissioner authorizes the claim and deems it “just and equitable.” Conn. Gen. Stat. § 4-160(a) (2024). A claim must first be filed with the Office of the Claims Commissioner. The Claims Commissioner will hold a hearing to determine whether to (i) dismiss the claim, (ii) recommend to the General Assembly that a payment be made, or (iii) authorize the claimant to sue the state. The General Assembly must then ratify or vacate the Claim Commissioner’s ruling.

Delaware

Delaware waives its sovereign immunity from liability and suit by entering into a contract. The State's sovereign immunity may only be waived by an Act of the General Assembly, and Delaware courts have held that, by authorizing the state to enter into valid contracts, the Delaware General Assembly waives the state’s immunity to suit for breach of that contract. George & Lynch, Inc. v. State, 197 A.2d 734 (Del. 1964). While the Delaware Constitution authorizes suits against the State, as may be provided by law, it is silent with respect to suits against units of local government. Nonetheless, the Delaware General Assembly enacted the State Tort Claims Act, which provides that political subdivisions of the State are entitled to the same privileges and immunities of the State, suggesting that local governmental entities waive immunity by entering into a contract.

District of Columbia

The District of Columbia has waived the sovereign/municipal immunity defense in actions based on upon a “procurement contract”, defined as “buying, purchasing, renting, leasing, or otherwise acquiring any goods, services, or construction”, but the District has not waived immunity from garnishment of District fund by a claimant seeking to execute a judgment. D.C. Code Ann. tit. 2 § 359.04 (2001). The District’s establishing act provides that the District has the power to “sue or be sued”; however, courts have held such language does not act as a waiver of sovereign immunity. See Chewning v. Dist. of Columbia, 119 F.2d 459 (D.C. Cir. 1941).

Florida

Florida’s Constitution provides that the state may consent to contract claims by legislatively waiving sovereign immunity protection. Fla. Const. art. 10, §13. In turn, Florida courts have held that where state law authorizes a state or a local governmental entity to enter into agreements, the legislature has demonstrated an intent to waive sovereign immunity. Pan-Am Tobacco Corp. v. Dep’t of Corr., 471 So.2d 4 (Fla. 1984); Manatee Cnty. v. Town of Longboat, 365 So.2d 143 (Fla. 1978).

Georgia

Georgia’s Constitution waives the sovereign immunity defense for contract claims. Ga. Const. art. 1 § 2, cl. IX(c). Local governmental entities are not protected by governmental immunity in contract disputes. Upper Oconee Basin Water Auth.v. Jackson Cnty, 699 S.E.2d 605 (Ga. Ct. App. 2010).

Alabama

Alabama strictly applies the doctrine of sovereign immunity to the state and state entities, prohibiting Alabama courts from exercising jurisdiction over nearly all claims against the state, including contractual claims. Ala. Const. art. I, § 14. The state may not waive the defense by contract. The state operates a Board of Adjustment to administratively hear certain types of claims against the state. Local government entities, however, are not protected by governmental immunity in contract disputes. See Jackson v. City of Florence, 320 So. 2d 68 (Ala. 1975) (abolishing sovereign immunity for municipalities); see also Ala. Code § 6-5-20 (2024); Cook v. St. Clair County, 384 So. 2d 1, 5 (Ala. 1980) (abolishing sovereign immunity for counties). 

Idaho

Idaho statutorily waives the sovereign immunity defense for contract claims. Grant Const. Co. v. Burns, 92 Idaho 408 (1968). Additionally, Idaho courts have held that non-state governmental entities are not protected under the sovereign immunity doctrine to the extent their obligations and debts do not become obligations and debts of the state. Bott v. Idaho State Bldg. Auth., 917 P.2d 737 (Idaho 1995).

Illinois

Except as provided by the General Assembly, Illinois has abolished the doctrine of sovereign immunity. Ill. Const. art. 13 § 4. The General Assembly has granted the Court of Claims exclusive jurisdiction over claims for breach of contract against the state. 705 Ill. Comp. Stat. 505/8. Local governmental entities are not protected by governmental immunity in contract disputes, and the General Assembly has not limited a municipality’s liability for breach of contract.

Indiana

Indiana statutorily waives the sovereign immunity defense for contract claims. Ind. Code § 34–13–1–1(a) (2025). Local governmental entities are not protected by governmental immunity in contract disputes. See City of South Bend v. Cao, 267 N.E.3d 1029 (Ind. Ct. App. 2025).

Iowa

Iowa statutorily waives the sovereign immunity defense for contract claims. Kersten Co., Inc. v. Dep’t of Soc. Serv., 207 N.W.2d 117 (Iowa 1973). Iowa case law generally provides that local governmental entities are not protected by governmental immunity in contract disputes.

Kansas

The Supreme Court of Kansas abolished the doctrine of governmental immunity when any governmental entity engages in private or proprietary activities as distinguished from governmental functions. Carroll v. Kittle, 457 P.2d 21 (Kan. 1969). The Court later stated in a breach of contract action against the Kansas Public Employees Retirement System: “the doctrine of sovereign immunity should not apply to a claim based upon the breach of an express contract . . . .” Shapiro v. Kan. Public Emp. Ret. Sys., 532 P.2d 1081 (Kan. 1975). Similarly, local governmental entities are not protected by governmental immunity in contract disputes. K.S.A. 12-101; Edward Kraemer & Sons, Inc. v. City of Overland Park, 880 P.2d 789 (Kan. Ct. App. 1994).

Kentucky

The Kentucky Model Procurement Code provides for a waiver of sovereign immunity with respect to a breach of contract claim, Ky. Rev. Stat. Ann. § 45A.245 (2025), and such waiver applies to all contracts of the Commonwealth, not simply those entered pursuant to the Model Procurement Code. Commonwealth v. Samaritan All. LLC, 439 S.W.3d 757 (Ky. App. 2014). Kentucky case law suggests that local government entities are generally viewed as extensions of the state and therefore not protected by the doctrine of sovereign immunity in a breach of contract claim.

Louisiana

Louisiana’s Constitution waives the sovereign immunity defense for contract claims with respect to the state, state agencies, and its “political subdivisions”. La. Const. art. 12, § 10. “State agency” is defined as any board, commission, department, agency, special district, authority, or other entity of the state, and “political subdivision” is broadly defined, in relevant parts, as any public or governmental body that is not a state agency. La. Stat. Ann. § 13:5102 (2025).

Maine

The Maine Supreme Court has held that the state implicitly waives its sovereign immunity defense for a contract claim if the legislature has enacted a general statute allowing the state to enter into such contract. The Profit Recovery Grp., USA, Inc. v. Comm'r, Dept. of Admin. & Fin. Serv., 871 A.2d 1237 (Me. 2005). With respect to local governmental entities, the Supreme Court of Maine in Profit Recovery Grp., stated, “We have recognized that the doctrines of sovereign immunity, applicable to the State and its agencies, and governmental immunity, applicable to political subdivisions of the State, do not have the same rationale or history, but we have treated them similarly.” 871 A.2d at 1245. This statement could suggest that local governmental entities, like the state, are deemed to waive any applicable immunities with respect to contract actions.

Maryland

Maryland statutorily waives the sovereign immunity defense for contract claims. Md. Code Ann., State Gov’t § 12-201. All disputes between the State and contractors/vendors doing business with the state are heard before the Board of Contract Appeals. Md. Code Ann, State Fin. & Proc. § 15-101 et seq.; Md. Code Regs. 21.10.05 et seq (2025). Counties and municipalities have no immunity in contract actions. Md.-Nat’l Cap. Park & Plan. Com'n v. Kranz, 521 A.2d 729 (Md. Ct. App. 1987).

Massachusetts

Massachusetts statutorily waives the sovereign immunity defense from suit for contract claims (MGLA c. 258 § 12); however, property of the Commonwealth is not subject to attachment or levy to pay a judgment, and the satisfaction of any judgment generally requires legislative appropriation. Mass. Const. Pt. 1, Art. 30; Bromfield v. Treasurer and Receiver Gen., 459 N.E.2d 445, 448 (Mass. 1983) (holding that it would be unconstitutional for the court to compel the Commonwealth Treasurer to make payment on a judgment where the legislature, absent “willfulness or bad faith”, has not made an appropriation to satisfy the judgment).

Michigan

The Michigan Supreme Court has held that the state is not protected by sovereign immunity when entering into a contract, Zynda v. Aeronautics Comm’n, 125 N.W.2d 858 (Mich. 1964), but the Court of Claims has exclusive jurisdiction over claims for breach of contract against the state. Local governmental entities are not protected by governmental immunity in contract disputes. Meadows v. City of Detroit, 418 N.W.2d 100 (Mich. App. 1987). Certain Michigan public retirement systems assert that their capital commitments cannot be pledge to or enforced by a third-party lender, citing the Michigan state constitution’s restriction on use of the state’s credit.

Minnesota

Minnesota has statutorily waived sovereign immunity for certain contract claims, including “contract for work, services, the delivery of goods, debt obligations of the state incurred under article XI of the Minnesota Constitution, or revenue obligations of a retirement fund incurred under section 356B.10 . . . .” Minn. Stat. § 3.751. Investment contracts would not appear to fall within the express language of this waiver, but prior to this abrogation, Minnesota courts generally held that governmental entities waived immunity by entering into a contract. Local governmental entities are not protected by governmental immunity in contract disputes. McDonough v. City of Rosemont, 503 N.W.2d 493 (Minn. App. Ct. 1993); City of Minneapolis v. Ames & Fischer Co. II, LLP, 724 N.W.2d 749 (Minn. Ct. App. 2006).

Alabama

Alabama strictly applies the doctrine of sovereign immunity to the state and state entities, prohibiting Alabama courts from exercising jurisdiction over nearly all claims against the state, including contractual claims. Ala. Const. art. I, § 14. The state may not waive the defense by contract. The state operates a Board of Adjustment to administratively hear certain types of claims against the state. Local government entities, however, are not protected by governmental immunity in contract disputes. See Jackson v. City of Florence, 320 So. 2d 68 (Ala. 1975) (abolishing sovereign immunity for municipalities); see also Ala. Code § 6-5-20 (2024); Cook v. St. Clair County, 384 So. 2d 1, 5 (Ala. 1980) (abolishing sovereign immunity for counties). 

Alaska

Alaska’s Constitution waives the state’s sovereign immunity and requires the legislature to establish procedures for such suits. Alaska Const. art. 2, § 21. In turn, the state’s Code of Civil procedure provides that (i) any person with a contract claim against the state may bring an action in state court, Alaska Stat. § 09.50.250 (2025), and (ii) that any municipality and any public corporation established thereby may are subject to suit for breach of contract. Alaska Stat. § 09.65.070 (2025). 

Arizona

Arizona statutorily waives the sovereign immunity defense for contract claims, and any person with a contract claim against the state or any other public entity may bring an action in state court. Ariz. Rev. Stat. Ann. §§ 12-820.01, 12-821 (2025). Therefore, local governmental entities are also not protected by governmental immunity in contract disputes.

Arkansas

Arkansas strictly applies the doctrine of sovereign immunity, prohibiting Arkansas courts from exercising jurisdiction over any claims against the state, including contractual claims. Ark. Const. art. 5, § 20. The Arkansas State Claims Commission acts as a non-judicial forum for claims against the state. Ark. Code Ann. § 19-10-204 (2024). The Commission’s statute, however, expressly excludes jurisdiction over claims arising out of the Arkansas Public Employees' Retirement System Act. Ark. Code Ann. § 19-10-204(b)(1)(A)(i)(d) (2024). Local governmental entities are not protected by governmental immunity in contract disputes. Bankston v. Pulaski County School Dist., 665 S.W.2d 859 (1984).

California

California has enacted a broad statutory waiver of the sovereign immunity defense for both state entities and local public entities, including contractual claims for money or other damages. In order for the waiver to be effective, a claim must be presented to the applicable public entity, in accordance with Cal Gov’t § 810-945, prior to filing suit. Depending on the defendant, different notice provisions may apply. The County Employees’ Retirement Law provides, with respect to county retirement systems, that “money in the fund . . . and any property purchased for investment purposes . . . are not subject to execution or any other process of court . . . “ Cal. Gov’t Code § 31452. Therefore, some county retirement systems have taken the position that they may assert the sovereign immunity defense in a breach of contract action.

Colorado

The Colorado Supreme Court has held that the state waives its immunity from suit by entering into a contract. Ace Flying Serv., Inc. v. Colo. Dep't of Agric., 314 P.2d 278 (Colo. 1957). The Court has, however, precluded specific performance of the contract as a remedy. Wheat Ridge Urban Renewal Authority v. Cornerstone Group XXII, L.L.C., 176 P.3d 737 (Colo. 2007). Similarly, local governmental entities are not protected by governmental immunity in contract disputes. Spaur v. City of Greeley, 372 P.2d 730 (Colo. 1962).

Connecticut

Claims against the state are generally prohibited under the sovereign immunity doctrine unless the Claims Commissioner authorizes the claim and deems it “just and equitable.” Conn. Gen. Stat. § 4-160(a) (2024). A claim must first be filed with the Office of the Claims Commissioner. The Claims Commissioner will hold a hearing to determine whether to (i) dismiss the claim, (ii) recommend to the General Assembly that a payment be made, or (iii) authorize the claimant to sue the state. The General Assembly must then ratify or vacate the Claim Commissioner’s ruling.

Delaware

Delaware waives its sovereign immunity from liability and suit by entering into a contract. The State's sovereign immunity may only be waived by an Act of the General Assembly, and Delaware courts have held that, by authorizing the state to enter into valid contracts, the Delaware General Assembly waives the state’s immunity to suit for breach of that contract. George & Lynch, Inc. v. State, 197 A.2d 734 (Del. 1964). While the Delaware Constitution authorizes suits against the State, as may be provided by law, it is silent with respect to suits against units of local government. Nonetheless, the Delaware General Assembly enacted the State Tort Claims Act, which provides that political subdivisions of the State are entitled to the same privileges and immunities of the State, suggesting that local governmental entities waive immunity by entering into a contract.

District of Columbia

The District of Columbia has waived the sovereign/municipal immunity defense in actions based on upon a “procurement contract”, defined as “buying, purchasing, renting, leasing, or otherwise acquiring any goods, services, or construction”, but the District has not waived immunity from garnishment of District fund by a claimant seeking to execute a judgment. D.C. Code Ann. tit. 2 § 359.04 (2001). The District’s establishing act provides that the District has the power to “sue or be sued”; however, courts have held such language does not act as a waiver of sovereign immunity. See Chewning v. Dist. of Columbia, 119 F.2d 459 (D.C. Cir. 1941).

Florida

Florida’s Constitution provides that the state may consent to contract claims by legislatively waiving sovereign immunity protection. Fla. Const. art. 10, §13. In turn, Florida courts have held that where state law authorizes a state or a local governmental entity to enter into agreements, the legislature has demonstrated an intent to waive sovereign immunity. Pan-Am Tobacco Corp. v. Dep’t of Corr., 471 So.2d 4 (Fla. 1984); Manatee Cnty. v. Town of Longboat, 365 So.2d 143 (Fla. 1978).

Georgia

Georgia’s Constitution waives the sovereign immunity defense for contract claims. Ga. Const. art. 1 § 2, cl. IX(c). Local governmental entities are not protected by governmental immunity in contract disputes. Upper Oconee Basin Water Auth.v. Jackson Cnty, 699 S.E.2d 605 (Ga. Ct. App. 2010).

Hawaii

Haw. Rev. Stat. § 661-1 (2024). Local governmental entities are not protected by governmental immunity in contract disputes. Kahale v. City & Cnty of Honolulu, 90 P.3d 233 (Haw. 2004).

Idaho

Idaho statutorily waives the sovereign immunity defense for contract claims. Grant Const. Co. v. Burns, 92 Idaho 408 (1968). Additionally, Idaho courts have held that non-state governmental entities are not protected under the sovereign immunity doctrine to the extent their obligations and debts do not become obligations and debts of the state. Bott v. Idaho State Bldg. Auth., 917 P.2d 737 (Idaho 1995).

Illinois

Except as provided by the General Assembly, Illinois has abolished the doctrine of sovereign immunity. Ill. Const. art. 13 § 4. The General Assembly has granted the Court of Claims exclusive jurisdiction over claims for breach of contract against the state. 705 Ill. Comp. Stat. 505/8. Local governmental entities are not protected by governmental immunity in contract disputes, and the General Assembly has not limited a municipality’s liability for breach of contract.

Indiana

Indiana statutorily waives the sovereign immunity defense for contract claims. Ind. Code § 34–13–1–1(a) (2025). Local governmental entities are not protected by governmental immunity in contract disputes. See City of South Bend v. Cao, 267 N.E.3d 1029 (Ind. Ct. App. 2025).

Iowa

Iowa statutorily waives the sovereign immunity defense for contract claims. Kersten Co., Inc. v. Dep’t of Soc. Serv., 207 N.W.2d 117 (Iowa 1973). Iowa case law generally provides that local governmental entities are not protected by governmental immunity in contract disputes.

Kansas

The Supreme Court of Kansas abolished the doctrine of governmental immunity when any governmental entity engages in private or proprietary activities as distinguished from governmental functions. Carroll v. Kittle, 457 P.2d 21 (Kan. 1969). The Court later stated in a breach of contract action against the Kansas Public Employees Retirement System: “the doctrine of sovereign immunity should not apply to a claim based upon the breach of an express contract . . . .” Shapiro v. Kan. Public Emp. Ret. Sys., 532 P.2d 1081 (Kan. 1975). Similarly, local governmental entities are not protected by governmental immunity in contract disputes. K.S.A. 12-101; Edward Kraemer & Sons, Inc. v. City of Overland Park, 880 P.2d 789 (Kan. Ct. App. 1994).

Kentucky

The Kentucky Model Procurement Code provides for a waiver of sovereign immunity with respect to a breach of contract claim, Ky. Rev. Stat. Ann. § 45A.245 (2025), and such waiver applies to all contracts of the Commonwealth, not simply those entered pursuant to the Model Procurement Code. Commonwealth v. Samaritan All. LLC, 439 S.W.3d 757 (Ky. App. 2014). Kentucky case law suggests that local government entities are generally viewed as extensions of the state and therefore not protected by the doctrine of sovereign immunity in a breach of contract claim.

Louisiana

Louisiana’s Constitution waives the sovereign immunity defense for contract claims with respect to the state, state agencies, and its “political subdivisions”. La. Const. art. 12, § 10. “State agency” is defined as any board, commission, department, agency, special district, authority, or other entity of the state, and “political subdivision” is broadly defined, in relevant parts, as any public or governmental body that is not a state agency. La. Stat. Ann. § 13:5102 (2025).

Maine

The Maine Supreme Court has held that the state implicitly waives its sovereign immunity defense for a contract claim if the legislature has enacted a general statute allowing the state to enter into such contract. The Profit Recovery Grp., USA, Inc. v. Comm'r, Dept. of Admin. & Fin. Serv., 871 A.2d 1237 (Me. 2005). With respect to local governmental entities, the Supreme Court of Maine in Profit Recovery Grp., stated, “We have recognized that the doctrines of sovereign immunity, applicable to the State and its agencies, and governmental immunity, applicable to political subdivisions of the State, do not have the same rationale or history, but we have treated them similarly.” 871 A.2d at 1245. This statement could suggest that local governmental entities, like the state, are deemed to waive any applicable immunities with respect to contract actions.

Maryland

Maryland statutorily waives the sovereign immunity defense for contract claims. Md. Code Ann., State Gov’t § 12-201. All disputes between the State and contractors/vendors doing business with the state are heard before the Board of Contract Appeals. Md. Code Ann, State Fin. & Proc. § 15-101 et seq.; Md. Code Regs. 21.10.05 et seq (2025). Counties and municipalities have no immunity in contract actions. Md.-Nat’l Cap. Park & Plan. Com'n v. Kranz, 521 A.2d 729 (Md. Ct. App. 1987).

Massachusetts

Massachusetts statutorily waives the sovereign immunity defense from suit for contract claims (MGLA c. 258 § 12); however, property of the Commonwealth is not subject to attachment or levy to pay a judgment, and the satisfaction of any judgment generally requires legislative appropriation. Mass. Const. Pt. 1, Art. 30; Bromfield v. Treasurer and Receiver Gen., 459 N.E.2d 445, 448 (Mass. 1983) (holding that it would be unconstitutional for the court to compel the Commonwealth Treasurer to make payment on a judgment where the legislature, absent “willfulness or bad faith”, has not made an appropriation to satisfy the judgment).

Michigan

The Michigan Supreme Court has held that the state is not protected by sovereign immunity when entering into a contract, Zynda v. Aeronautics Comm’n, 125 N.W.2d 858 (Mich. 1964), but the Court of Claims has exclusive jurisdiction over claims for breach of contract against the state. Local governmental entities are not protected by governmental immunity in contract disputes. Meadows v. City of Detroit, 418 N.W.2d 100 (Mich. App. 1987). Certain Michigan public retirement systems assert that their capital commitments cannot be pledge to or enforced by a third-party lender, citing the Michigan state constitution’s restriction on use of the state’s credit.

Minnesota

Minnesota has statutorily waived sovereign immunity for certain contract claims, including “contract for work, services, the delivery of goods, debt obligations of the state incurred under article XI of the Minnesota Constitution, or revenue obligations of a retirement fund incurred under section 356B.10 . . . .” Minn. Stat. § 3.751. Investment contracts would not appear to fall within the express language of this waiver, but prior to this abrogation, Minnesota courts generally held that governmental entities waived immunity by entering into a contract. Local governmental entities are not protected by governmental immunity in contract disputes. McDonough v. City of Rosemont, 503 N.W.2d 493 (Minn. App. Ct. 1993); City of Minneapolis v. Ames & Fischer Co. II, LLP, 724 N.W.2d 749 (Minn. Ct. App. 2006).

Mississippi

The Mississippi Supreme Court has held that the state and its political subdivisions are not protected by sovereign immunity from a dispute based on the express terms of a contract. Churchill vs. Pearl River Basin Dev. Dist., 619 So.2d 900, 903 (Miss. 1993). Mississippi courts have also held that the Mississippi Tort Claims Act (MTCA) applies to contract-related disputes involving government entities. City of Jackson v. Estate of Stewart ex rel. Womack, 908 So.2d 703 (Miss. 2005). The MTCA grants limited immunity to the state and its political subdivisions for breach of implied term or condition of any warranty or contract; however, the state legislature has provided a limited waiver of this immunity protection by setting maximum amounts on liability for claims against a governmental entity. Miss. Code. Ann. §§ 11-46-5, 11-46-15 (2024).

Missouri

The Missouri Supreme Court has held that the state is not protected by sovereign immunity when entering into a contract. Similarly, local governmental entities are not protected by governmental immunity in contract disputes. S. DiCarlo Const. Co., Inc. v. State, 485 S.W.2d 52, 54 (Mo. 1972); Kunzie v. City of Olivette, 184 S.W.3d 570, 575 (Mo. 2006).

Montana

Montana statutorily waives the sovereign immunity defense for contract claims. Mont. Code Ann. § 18-1-404 (2024). The district courts of the state of Montana have exclusive original jurisdiction of any such claim, Id. § 18-1-401, but New York courts have asserted jurisdiction over contract claims involving the Montana Board of Investments. See Deutsche Bank Sec., Inc. v. Montana Board of Inv., 850 N.E.2d 1140 (NY 2006).

Nebraska

Nebraska statutorily waives the sovereign immunity defense for contract claims, but the claim must first be filed with the state’s Risk Manager within the Department of Administrative Services. After investigating the claim and making a finding, claims recommended for payment in excess of $50,001.00 must be approved by the state legislature. Neb. Rev. Stat. §§ 25-21,206, 81-8,300 et seq. (2025).

Nevada

Nevada statutorily waives the sovereign immunity defense for contract claims with respect to the State and all political subdivisions of the State. Nev. Rev. Stat. § 41.031 (2024).

New Hampshire

New Hampshire statutorily waives the sovereign immunity defense for contract claims. N.H. Rev. Stat. Ann. § 491:8 (2025). Similarly, New Hampshire courts have held that local governmental entities are not protected by governmental immunity in contract disputes. Great Lakes Aircraft Co., Inc. v. City of Claremont, 608 A.2d 840 (N.H. 1992).

New Jersey

New Jersey statutorily waives the sovereign immunity defense for contract claims. N.J. Stat. Ann. § 59:13-3 (2024). Similarly, New Jersey courts have held that local governmental entities are not protected by governmental immunity in contract disputes. Frank v. Bd. of Educ. of Jersey City, 90 N.J.L. 273 (N.J. 1917).

New Mexico

New Mexico statutorily waives the sovereign immunity defense for contract claims with respect to the state, municipalities, and other local governmental entities. N.M. Stat. Ann. §§ 37-1-23—24 (2024).

New York

New York statutorily waives the sovereign immunity defense for contract claims with respect to both the state and units of local government, but the Court of Claims has exclusive jurisdiction over such claims. N.Y. Ct. Cl. Act §§ 8—9 (2025). See also McCrink v. City of New York, 71 N.E.2d 419 (N.Y. 1947).

North Carolina

The North Carolina Supreme Court has held that the state is not protected by sovereign immunity when entering into a contract. Smith v. State, 222 S.E.2d 412, 423–24 (N.C. 1976). Similarly, local governmental entities are not protected by governmental immunity in contract disputes. Wray v. City of Greensboro, 802 S.E.2d 894 (N.C. 2017).

North Dakota

North Dakota statutorily waives the sovereign immunity defense for contract claims. N.D. Cent. Code § 32-12-02 (2025). In Kitto v. Minot Park Dist., the Supreme Court of North Dakota abolished the doctrine of governmental immunity while reserving the legislature’s right to limit the liability of political subdivisions of the state. 224 N.W.2d 795 (N.D. 1974). The legislature responded by enacting N.D. Cent. Code § 32-12.1-03 (2025), which provides for limited tort liability. The state has not enacted limitations on political subdivisions’ liabilities with respect to contracts.

Ohio

Ohio statutorily waives the sovereign immunity defense for contract claims, but the Court of Claims has exclusive jurisdiction over such claims unless the state has “previously consented to be sued.” Ohio Rev. Code Ann. § 2743.02(A)(1) (2025). Contractual claims against state entities that have previously consented to being sued may be brought in the applicable courts of common pleas, which are state courts of general jurisdiction. See Martin v. Ohio Turnpike, 2002 Ohio 3523 (Ohio Ct. of Cl. 2002); GLA Water Mgt. v. Univ. of Toledo, 963 N.E.2d 207 (Ohio Ct. App. 2011). Generally, local governmental entities are not protected by governmental immunity in contract disputes, and Ohio courts of common pleas have original jurisdiction over contractual claims against local government entities. Ohio Rev. Code § 2743.01 (2025); Burr v. Board of County Comm'rs of Stark Cnty, 491 N.E.2d 1101 (Ohio 1986).

Oklahoma

The Supreme Court of Oklahoma has held that the state waives the sovereign immunity defense for contract claims. State Bd. of Pub. Aff. v. Principal Funding Corp., 542 P.2d 503 (Okla. 1975). Oklahoma statutes provide that counties and municipalities are established as bodies corporate and politic with the power to sue and be sued, and as such are not entitled to governmental immunity. Ok. Stat. tit. 19 § 1 (2025); Ok. Stat. tit. 11 § 22-101 (2025).

Oregon

Oregon statutorily waives the sovereign immunity defense for contract claims. Or. Rev. Stat. § 30.320 (2023). The statute waiving the state’s immunity also waives the immunity of counties but not of other local governmental entities.

Pennsylvania

While Pennsylvania waives immunity from contract claims entered pursuant to the Commonwealth Procurement Code, the Commonwealth Procurement Code expressly precludes its application to the investment of funds. 62 Pa. Cons. Stat. §§ 1702, 102(f) (2024). In Telwell Inc., v. Pub. Sch. Emp. Ret. Sys., the court held in a breach of contract claim based on a loan that the Board of Claims did not have jurisdiction, and in accordance with Article I, Section 11 of the Pennsylvania Constitution, the Public School Employees' Retirement System (PSERS) was entitled to the sovereign immunity defense. 88 A.3d 1079 (Pa. Commw. Ct. 2014). Therefore, a state entity likely has the defense of sovereign immunity against contract claims based on contracts for the investments of funds. Local governmental entities are not protected by governmental immunity in contract disputes. Ayala v. Philadelphia Bd. of Pub. Educ., 453 Pa. 584 (1973).

Rhode Island

Rhode Island has statutorily waived sovereign immunity in certain contexts, including generally under the State Purchases Act. 37 R.I. Gen. Laws § 37-2-48 (2024). Therefore, whether an investment contract is subject to a waiver depends on whether it was procured under the State Purchases Act or some other authority. Local government entities, as extensions of the state, are also generally protected under the sovereign immunity doctrine, unless implicitly or expressly waived by statute. Pellegrino v. Rhode Island Ethics Com'n, 788 A.2d 1119 (R.I. 2002).

South Carolina

The South Carolina Supreme Court has held that statutory authority to enter into contracts can be construed as statutory waiver of sovereign immunity, but each such statute must be individually examined. Unisys Corp. v. South Carolina Budget and Control Bd. Div. of Gen. Serv. Info. Tech. Mgmt. Off., 551 S.E.2d 263 (S.C. 2001). As extensions of the state, local government entities are generally immune from suit unless expressly waived by statute. Health Promotion Specialists, LLC v. South Carolina Bd. of Dentistry, 743 S.E.2d 808 (S.C. 2013).

South Dakota

The South Dakota Supreme Court has held that the state is not protected by sovereign immunity when entering into a contract. Sisney v. Reisch, 754 N.W.2d 813 (S.D. 2008). Claims must be brought before the Office of the Commissioner of Claims, who then appoints a circuit judge to act on the claim. S.D. Codified Laws § 21-32-1 et seq (2025). Local governmental entities are not protected by governmental immunity in contract disputes. Blue Fox Bar, Inc. v. City of Yankton, 424 N.W.2d 915 (S.D. 1988).

Tennessee

Article I, Section 17 of the Tennessee Constitution states that “suits may be brought against the State in such manner and in such courts as the legislature may by law direct.” The legislature established the Tennessee Claims Commission and granted it the exclusive right to hear contract claims against the state. Tenn. Code Ann. §§ 9-8-301 et seq (2024). Local governmental entities are not protected by governmental immunity in contract disputes, and the General Assembly has not limited a municipality’s liability for breach of contract. While the Tennessee Governmental Tort Liability Act applies to disputes against counties, municipalities, and other local government entities, it does not apply to contract-based disputes, only tort claims. Tenn. Code Ann. § 29-20-201 (2024).

Texas

Generally, state entities in Texas enjoy protection from contract claims under the sovereign immunity defense (immunity from suit) unless expressly waived by the state legislature. Fed. Sign v. Texas S. Univ., 951 S.W.2d 401 (Tex. 1997). The legislature created the State Office of Administrative Hearings (SOAH) to address certain breach of contract cases involving the state. Whether an investment contract would fall under the jurisdiction of the SOAH is untested, but at least one Texas retirement system is expressly excluded from SOAH’s jurisdiction: the Texas Permanent School Fund. Tex. Educ. Code Ann. § 43.056 (West 2024). The legislature has statutorily waived local governmental entities’ immunity from suit in contract claims. Tex. Loc. Gov‘t Code Ann. § 271.152 (West 2024).

Utah

Utah statutorily waives the sovereign immunity defense for contract claims with respect to the state and local governmental entities. Utah Code Ann. § 63G-7-301(1)(a) (2025).

Vermont

The Vermont Supreme Court held that the legislature may waive sovereign immunity by statute. Jacobs v. State Tchr. Ret. Sys. of Vt., 816 A.2d 517 (Vt. 2002). The legislature passed a series of waivers of tort immunity under the Vermont Tort Claims Act (Vt. Stat. Ann. tit. 12 § 5601 (2025)), but the legislature has not passed a waiver applicable to the Vermont Pension Investment Commission specifically or contract claims generally.

Virginia

The Virginia Supreme Court abolished the sovereign immunity defense for contract claims with respect to the state and local governmental entities. Wiecking v. Allied Medical Supply Corp., 391 S.E.2d 258 (Va. 1990).

Washington

Washington’s Constitution provides a broad waiver of the state’s sovereign immunity and requires that any claim must be brought in the superior court. Wash. Const. Art. IV, § 20. Local governmental entities are not protected by governmental immunity in contract disputes. Wilson v. City of Seattle, 863 P.2d 1336 (Wash. 1993)

West Virginia

While West Virginia’s Constitution asserts the state’s sovereign immunity, the legislature established the West Virginia Legislative Claims Commission and granted it the exclusive jurisdiction over claims against state entities. W. Va. Code §14-2-13 (2025). The Commission only makes recommendations. Its recommendations are not binding and can be rejected or disapproved. Id. § 14-2-1. Local governmental entities are not protected by governmental immunity in contract disputes. Higginbotham v. City of Charleston, 157 W.Va. 724 (1974) (overruled on other grounds, 237 S.E.2d 504 (1977)).

Wisconsin

The State of Wisconsin partially waives its sovereign immunity in contract actions by allowing claims to be heard before the State Claims Board. Wis. Stat. § 16.007 (2025). If the State Claim Board’s recommendation to pay a claim more than $10,000 is rejected by the legislature, a claimant may file suit in a state court. Id. § 775.01. Local governmental entities are not protected by governmental immunity in contract disputes. Fiala v. Voight, 93 Wis. 2d 337, 348 (1980).

Wyoming

Wyoming has statutorily waived sovereign immunity for contact claims with respect to the state and local governmental entities, except to the extent immunity is reserved in the underlying contract. Wyo. Stat. Ann. § 1-39-104 (2024). Therefore, any reservation of immunity in an investment contract would allow a governmental investor to assert sovereign immunity in defense of a contract claim.