virginia
office
protection
advocacy
stewart
commissioner
virginia
department
behavioral
health
developmental
services
et
argued
december
decided
april
together
developmental
disabilities
assistance
bill
rights
act
dd
act
protection
advocacy
individuals
mental
illness
act
paimi
act
offer
federal
money
improve
inter
alia
medical
care
persons
developmental
disabilities
mental
illness
condition
funding
state
must
establish
protection
advocacy
system
protect
advocate
individuals
rights
participating
state
may
appoint
either
state
agency
private
nonprofit
entity
system
state
agency
must
authority
litigate
freedom
control
state
agencies
officers
virginia
appointed
independent
state
agency
petitioner
virginia
office
protection
advocacy
vopa
authorizing
litigate
secure
disabled
individuals
rights
free
oversight
operate
independently
virginia
attorney
general
employ
lawyers
sue
behalf
investigating
patient
deaths
injuries
state
mental
hospitals
vopa
asked
respondents
state
officials
charge
hospitals
produce
relevant
patient
records
respondents
refused
asserting
privilege
shielded
records
disclosure
vopa
filed
suit
federal
district
seeking
declaration
respondents
refusal
produce
records
violated
dd
paimi
acts
injunction
requiring
respondents
produce
records
refrain
future
interfering
vopa
right
access
respondents
moved
dismiss
ground
immune
suit
eleventh
amendment
held
suit
permitted
doctrine
ex
parte
young
normally
allows
federal
courts
award
prospective
relief
state
officials
violations
federal
law
fourth
circuit
reversed
finding
ex
parte
young
apply
suit
brought
state
agency
held
ex
parte
young
allows
federal
hear
lawsuit
prospective
relief
state
officials
brought
another
agency
state
pp
absent
waiver
sovereign
immunity
state
valid
abrogation
congress
federal
courts
may
entertain
private
person
suit
state
pp
doctrine
ex
parte
young
establishes
important
limitation
principle
accepted
necessary
permit
federal
courts
vindicate
federal
rights
pennhurst
state
school
hospital
halderman
rests
premise
federal
commands
state
official
nothing
refrain
violating
federal
law
state
purposes
apply
state
party
interest
pp
entertaining
vopa
action
consistent
precedent
offend
distinctive
interests
protected
sovereign
immunity
pp
verizon
md
public
serv
held
determining
ex
parte
young
doctrine
applicability
need
conduct
inquiry
whether
complaint
alleges
ongoing
violation
federal
law
seeks
relief
properly
characterized
prospective
vopa
suit
satisfies
inquiry
respondents
concede
action
proper
vopa
private
organization
rather
state
agency
general
criterion
determining
suit
fact
sovereign
effect
relief
sought
pennhurst
supra
bringing
lawsuit
applied
criterion
idaho
coeur
tribe
idaho
held
indian
tribe
invoke
ex
parte
young
bring
essentially
quiet
title
suit
extinguish
idaho
control
lands
waters
long
deemed
integral
part
territory
respondents
advanced
argument
relief
sought
threatens
similar
invasion
virginia
sovereignty
pp
respondents
claim
state
dignity
diminished
federal
adjudicates
dispute
components
state
stature
diminished
greater
degree
agency
sues
enforce
officers
compliance
federal
law
private
person
moreover
vopa
power
sue
state
officials
consequence
virginia
decision
establish
public
system
every
offense
state
dignity
constitutes
denial
sovereign
immunity
specific
indignity
sovereign
immunity
protects
insult
state
haled
without
consent
occur
suit
happens
brought
another
state
agency
pp
apparent
novelty
suit
likely
consequence
past
constitutional
doubts
order
invoke
ex
parte
young
exception
state
agency
needs
federal
right
possesses
parent
state
authority
sue
state
officials
enforce
right
free
internal
veto
conditions
rarely
coincide
event
principles
undergirding
ex
parte
young
doctrine
support
extension
actions
kind
pp
reversed
remanded
scalia
delivered
opinion
kennedy
thomas
ginsburg
breyer
sotomayor
joined
kennedy
filed
concurring
opinion
thomas
joined
roberts
filed
dissenting
opinion
alito
joined
kagan
took
part
consideration
decision
case
virginia
office
protection
cacy
petitioner
james
stewart
iii
commissioner
virginia
department
behavioral
health
velopmental
services
et
al
writ
certiorari
appeals
fourth
circuit
april
justice
scalia
delivered
opinion
consider
whether
ex
parte
young
allows
federal
hear
lawsuit
prospective
relief
state
officials
brought
another
agency
state
developmental
disabilities
assistance
bill
rights
act
dd
act
stat
et
offers
federal
money
improve
community
services
medical
care
job
training
individuals
developmental
disabilities
see
condition
funding
state
must
establish
protection
advocacy
system
protect
advocate
rights
individuals
developmental
disabilities
system
receives
separate
federal
funds
paid
directly
second
federal
law
protection
advocacy
individuals
mental
illness
act
paimi
act
stat
et
increases
separate
funding
extends
mission
systems
include
mentally
present
every
state
accepts
funds
statutes
dd
paimi
acts
system
must
certain
powers
system
shall
authority
investigate
incidents
abuse
neglect
incidents
reported
system
probable
cause
believe
incidents
occurred
subject
certain
statutory
requirements
must
given
access
records
individuals
may
abused
see
iii
ii
iii
well
records
relevant
conducting
investigation
acts
also
require
system
authority
pursue
legal
administrative
appropriate
remedies
approaches
ensure
protection
charges
see
addition
pressing
rights
system
may
pursue
administrative
legal
remedies
behalf
protects
see
participating
state
free
appoint
either
state
agency
private
nonprofit
entity
system
either
case
designated
entity
must
certain
structural
features
ensure
independence
state
government
dd
act
prohibits
governor
appointing
members
system
governing
board
restricts
state
ability
impose
hiring
freezes
measures
impair
system
ability
carry
mission
state
designates
entity
system
may
change
selection
without
good
cause
virginia
one
eight
designated
government
entity
system
virginia
office
protection
advocacy
vopa
independent
state
agency
code
ann
lexis
board
consists
eleven
nonlegislative
citizen
members
three
appointed
governor
remaining
eight
appointed
components
legislature
five
speaker
house
delegates
three
senate
committee
rules
ibid
vopa
nominates
candidates
consideration
statute
instructs
appointing
officials
shall
seriously
consider
persons
nominated
appoint
persons
whenever
feasible
ibid
board
members
serve
fixed
terms
removable
specified
reasons
see
lexis
vopa
enjoys
authority
litigate
free
oversight
operates
independently
attorney
general
virginia
employs
lawyers
statutorily
authorized
sue
vopa
behalf
lexis
virginia
law
specifically
empowers
vopa
initiate
proceedings
secure
rights
disabled
individuals
vopa
opened
investigation
deaths
two
patients
injuries
third
mental
hospitals
asked
respondents
state
officials
charge
institutions
produce
records
related
mortality
reviews
conducted
hospitals
respect
patients
respondents
refused
asserting
records
protected
privilege
shielding
medical
materials
disclosure
vopa
brought
action
district
eastern
district
virginia
alleging
dd
paimi
acts
entitled
records
notwithstanding
privilege
might
apply
sought
declaration
respondents
refusal
produce
records
violated
dd
paimi
acts
along
injunction
requiring
respondents
provide
access
records
refrain
future
interfering
vopa
right
access
respondents
moved
dismiss
action
grounds
immune
suit
eleventh
amendment
district
denied
motion
view
suit
permitted
doctrine
ex
parte
young
normally
allows
federal
courts
award
prospective
relief
state
officials
violations
federal
law
virginia
reinhard
wl
ed
july
appeals
reversed
virginia
reinhard
believing
vopa
lawsuit
intramural
contest
encroaches
severely
dignity
sovereignty
ex
parte
young
action
brought
private
plaintiff
appeals
concluded
authorized
case
internal
quotation
marks
omitted
granted
certiorari
ii
sovereign
immunity
privilege
sovereign
sued
without
consent
language
eleventh
eliminates
basis
judgment
famous
case
chisholm
georgia
dall
involved
suit
state
noncitizen
state
since
hans
louisiana
however
understood
eleventh
amendment
confirm
structural
understanding
entered
union
sovereign
immunity
intact
unlimited
article
iii
jurisdictional
grant
blatchford
native
village
noatak
see
pennhurst
state
school
hospital
halderman
cases
hold
retained
traditional
immunity
suit
except
altered
plan
convention
certain
constitutional
amendments
alden
maine
state
may
waive
sovereign
immunity
pleasure
college
savings
bank
florida
prepaid
postsecondary
ed
expense
circumstances
congress
may
abrogate
appropriate
absent
waiver
valid
abrogation
federal
courts
may
entertain
private
person
suit
state
ex
parte
young
established
important
limit
principle
case
involved
challenge
minnesota
law
reducing
freight
rates
railroads
charge
railroad
shareholder
claimed
new
rates
confiscatory
obtained
federal
injunction
edward
young
attorney
general
minnesota
forbidding
official
capacity
enforce
state
law
perkins
northern
pacific
cc
young
violated
injunction
initiating
enforcement
action
state
circuit
held
contempt
committed
federal
custody
habeas
corpus
application
young
challenged
confinement
arguing
minnesota
sovereign
immunity
deprived
federal
jurisdiction
enjoin
performing
official
duties
disagreed
explained
unconstitutional
legislative
enactment
void
state
official
enforces
law
comes
conflict
superior
authority
constitution
therefore
stripped
official
representative
character
subjected
person
consequences
individual
conduct
state
power
impart
immunity
responsibility
authority
doctrine
existed
alongside
jurisprudence
century
accepted
necessary
permit
federal
courts
vindicate
federal
rights
pennhurst
rests
premise
less
delicately
called
fiction
federal
commands
state
official
nothing
refrain
violating
federal
law
state
purposes
doctrine
limited
precise
situation
apply
state
real
substantial
party
interest
quoting
ford
motor
department
treasury
sought
expend
public
treasury
domain
interfere
public
administration
quoting
dugan
rank
case
requires
us
decide
apply
ex
parte
young
doctrine
suit
brought
independent
state
agency
claiming
possess
federal
rights
although
never
encountered
suit
satisfied
entertaining
vopa
action
consistent
precedents
offend
distinctive
interests
protected
sovereign
immunity
verizon
md
public
serv
held
determining
whether
doctrine
ex
parte
young
avoids
eleventh
amendment
bar
suit
need
conduct
inquiry
whether
complaint
alleges
ongoing
violation
federal
law
seeks
relief
properly
characterized
prospective
quoting
idaho
coeur
tribe
idaho
concurring
part
concurring
judgment
doubt
vopa
suit
satisfies
straightforward
inquiry
alleges
respondents
refusal
produce
requested
medical
records
violates
federal
law
seeks
injunction
requiring
production
records
prospectively
abate
alleged
violation
respondents
concede
vopa
private
organization
rather
state
agency
doctrine
permit
action
see
reason
different
result
although
respondents
argue
vopa
status
state
agency
changes
calculus
warrant
cases
making
validity
ex
parte
young
action
turn
identity
plaintiff
sure
willing
police
abuses
doctrine
threaten
evade
sovereign
immunity
otherwise
adhere
empty
formalism
coeur
tribe
supra
dissent
concedes
post
opinion
roberts
limits
recognized
reflect
principle
general
criterion
determining
suit
fact
sovereign
effect
relief
sought
pennhurst
supra
bringing
lawsuit
thus
ex
parte
young
used
obtain
injunction
requiring
payment
funds
state
treasury
see
edelman
jordan
order
specific
performance
state
contract
see
ayers
coeur
tribe
respondents
heavily
rely
application
principle
refused
allow
indian
tribe
use
ex
parte
young
obtain
injunctive
declaratory
relief
establishing
exclusive
right
use
enjoyment
certain
submerged
lands
idaho
invalidity
state
statutes
regulations
governing
land
determined
suit
functional
equivalent
quiet
title
suit
idaho
extinguish
state
control
vast
reach
lands
waters
long
deemed
state
integral
part
territory
thus
barred
sovereign
immunity
respondents
advanced
argument
relief
sought
case
threatens
similar
invasion
virginia
sovereignty
indeed
concede
injunction
vopa
requests
properly
awarded
federal
instance
private
system
respondents
dissent
argue
entertaining
vopa
lawsuit
federal
forum
nevertheless
infringe
virginia
sovereign
interests
diminishes
dignity
state
federal
adjudicate
dispute
components
see
brief
respondents
post
arguing
sovereignty
bar
vopa
lawsuit
quoting
coeur
tribe
supra
disagree
initial
matter
understand
state
stature
diminished
greater
degree
agency
polices
officers
compliance
federal
obligations
private
person
hales
officers
federal
purpose
something
everyone
agrees
case
course
vopa
power
sue
state
officials
consequence
virginia
decision
establish
public
rather
private
system
fail
perceive
eleventh
amendment
indignity
visited
commonwealth
operation
laws
vopa
admitted
federal
even
true
state
dignity
offended
way
maintenance
action
federal
prove
respondents
case
denial
sovereign
immunity
sure
offends
dignity
state
every
offense
dignity
state
constitutes
denial
sovereign
immunity
specific
indignity
sovereign
immunity
protects
insult
state
haled
without
consent
effectively
occurs
cases
reasonably
conclude
example
object
suit
state
officer
reach
funds
state
treasury
acquire
state
lands
occur
suit
happens
brought
another
state
agency
respondents
asserted
dignitary
harm
simply
unconnected
interest
dissent
complains
applying
ex
parte
young
lawsuit
divides
virginia
since
opposing
parties
creatures
commonwealth
post
even
distinctive
consequence
letting
suit
proceed
federal
nothing
concern
whether
suit
unconsenting
state
rather
officers
consequence
federal
nature
forum
result
follow
federal
claim
sued
upon
state
dissent
require
also
hatever
decision
litigation
commonwealth
win
nd
commonwealth
lose
ibid
sending
matter
state
even
avoid
prospect
federal
judge
resolve
part
commonwealth
prevail
since
loser
always
ask
review
matter
certiorari
appeal
also
disallowed
grounds
sovereign
immunity
see
cohens
virginia
wheat
course
precisely
thing
happen
respondents
specifically
waived
objections
case
yet
one
contend
despite
waiver
sovereign
immunity
forbade
suit
also
reason
ex
parte
young
violation
sovereign
immunity
prospect
federal
judge
resolving
vopa
dispute
respondents
make
doubt
course
limits
federal
government
power
affect
internal
operations
state
see
printz
congress
may
commandeer
state
officers
coyle
smith
congress
may
dictate
state
capital
limits
must
found
textual
provision
structural
premise
constitution
additional
limits
smuggled
eleventh
amendment
barring
suit
federal
violate
state
sovereign
immunity
weightier
objection
perhaps
relative
novelty
lawsuit
respondents
rightly
observe
federal
courts
often
encountered
lawsuits
brought
state
agencies
state
officials
give
us
pause
lack
historical
precedent
indicate
constitutional
infirmity
see
free
enterprise
fund
public
company
accounting
oversight
slip
decisions
traditionally
warned
proceedings
suits
alden
quoting
hans
novelty
however
often
consequence
past
constitutional
doubts
reason
believe
case
order
invoke
ex
parte
young
exception
sovereign
immunity
state
agency
needs
two
things
first
federal
right
possesses
parent
state
second
authority
sue
state
officials
enforce
right
free
internal
veto
wielded
state
government
conditions
rarely
coincide
least
latter
exist
without
consent
state
created
agency
defined
powers
see
post
kennedy
concurring
unaware
necessary
conditions
ever
presented
except
connection
dd
paimi
acts
parties
referred
us
thus
apparent
novelty
sort
suit
suggest
unconstitutionality
event
satisfied
reasons
explained
novelty
notwithstanding
principles
undergirding
ex
parte
young
support
application
actions
kind
like
appeals
mindful
central
role
autonomous
play
federal
system
wary
approving
new
encroachments
sovereignty
conclude
encroachment
occasioned
straightforwardly
applying
ex
parte
young
allow
suit
virginia
law
created
vopa
gave
power
sue
state
officials
circumstance
eleventh
amendment
presents
obstacle
vopa
ability
invoke
federal
jurisdiction
terms
litigant
reverse
judgment
appeals
remand
case
proceedings
consistent
opinion
ordered
justice
kagan
took
part
consideration
decision
case
virginia
office
protection
advocacy
petitioner
james
stewart
iii
commissioner
virginia
department
behavioral
health
developmental
services
et
al
writ
certiorari
appeals
fourth
circuit
april
justice
kennedy
justice
thomas
joins
concurring
ex
parte
young
recognized
narrow
limitation
state
sovereign
immunity
permitting
railroad
stockholders
enjoin
enforcement
rate
regulations
negative
injunction
nothing
assertion
equity
defense
otherwise
available
state
enforcement
proceedings
law
see
also
harrison
ex
parte
young
stan
rev
expanded
young
exception
far
beyond
original
office
order
vindicate
federal
interest
assuring
supremacy
federal
law
green
mansour
without
careful
attention
case
sovereign
interests
state
see
verizon
md
public
serv
kennedy
concurring
edelman
jordan
example
applied
exception
affirmative
prospective
order
equitable
restitution
latter
similar
award
damages
state
see
pennhurst
state
school
hospital
halderman
theory
young
suit
restitution
one
state
since
allegation
strip
state
officer
official
authority
nevertheless
retroactive
relief
barred
eleventh
amendment
pennhurst
declined
extend
young
suits
alleging
violation
without
need
ensure
supremacy
federal
law
justification
restricting
state
sovereignty
straightforward
inquiry
verizon
md
derives
edelman
pennhurst
defined
important
limits
young
order
respect
state
sovereignty
still
adhering
principles
necessary
implement
supremacy
clause
result
verizon
md
incorporates
balancing
might
first
seem
reject
verizon
md
easy
case
involved
kind
preenforcement
assertion
defense
issue
young
young
application
explored
novel
contexts
idaho
coeur
tribe
idaho
also
case
inquiry
proves
complex
verizon
supra
kennedy
concurring
case
view
virginia
office
protection
advocacy
may
rely
young
despite
somewhat
striking
novelty
permitting
state
agency
sue
officials
state
federal
posture
case
comes
must
assumed
vopa
federal
right
records
seeks
extension
young
vindicate
supremacy
clause
balanced
important
interest
need
preserve
dignity
respect
afforded
state
immunity
designed
protect
coeur
supra
permitting
state
agency
like
vopa
sue
officials
state
implicate
state
important
sovereign
interest
using
courts
control
distribution
power
among
agents
affront
state
dignity
diminished
extent
noted
state
elected
alternate
course
designating
private
protection
advocacy
system
avoided
risk
internal
conflict
still
participating
federal
program
availability
alternate
course
view
weigh
much
favor
validity
underlying
federal
scheme
question
reach
young
exception
virginia
concern
holding
upsets
federal
balance
mitigated
various
protections
built
structure
federal
litigation
ensure
state
officials
often
call
upon
federal
courts
resolve
intramural
disputes
first
important
state
law
must
authorize
agency
official
sue
another
arm
state
wish
see
internal
conflicts
aired
federal
need
empower
officers
agencies
sue
one
another
federal
forum
state
officers
state
law
empowered
sue
may
invoke
federal
jurisdiction
personal
capacities
second
extent
doubt
state
law
officer
agency
power
sue
issue
may
dispositive
federal
courts
abstain
railroad
tex
pullman
pullman
recognizes
importance
state
sovereignty
limiting
federal
judicial
intervention
state
affairs
cases
intervention
necessary
open
question
resolve
dispute
federal
courts
may
wait
resolution
issue
adjudicating
merits
likewise
certification
questions
state
law
state
courts
may
pretermit
otherwise
sensitive
federal
controversy
lehman
brothers
schein
certification
helps
build
cooperative
judicial
federalism
finally
federal
law
often
create
rights
state
officials
agencies
assert
arms
state
true
officials
may
assert
personal
federal
rights
violated
unlawful
state
action
example
state
engages
discriminatory
employment
practices
statutory
framework
case
unusual
vests
state
agency
federal
rights
state
statutes
tend
protect
rights
individuals
officers
agencies
constitution
clauses
protect
persons
rather
officers
young
exception
available
assert
federal
violations
paucity
federal
rights
vested
government
officials
makes
scope
holding
narrow
one
simply
underscore
program
issue
may
present
constitutional
questions
parties
raise
litigation
virginia
argue
example
congress
exceeded
spending
power
article
forcing
state
wishes
designate
public
agency
advocacy
system
allow
intramural
suits
like
instant
one
requiring
agency
structured
congress
directs
system
must
independent
agency
provides
treatment
services
habilitation
individuals
developmental
disabilities
ot
members
governing
board
may
appointed
chief
executive
officer
state
young
doctrine
based
convenience
fiction
neither
implicates
subsumes
fundamental
concerns
regarding
excessive
exercise
federal
power
cautious
deciding
cases
might
later
lead
general
principle
national
government
condition
receipt
funds
state
agreement
make
changes
respect
governmental
structure
basic
policies
governance
matters
within
special
competence
assuming
must
statutes
constitutional
narrow
question
whether
vopa
may
rely
young
avoid
sovereign
immunity
bar
one
might
doubt
whether
constitutional
question
may
severed
young
analysis
wields
young
name
supremacy
clause
vindicate
important
federal
rights
perhaps
extend
fiction
name
claims
may
rest
unconstitutional
foundations
concern
misplaced
canon
constitutional
avoidance
directs
courts
prefer
interpretation
statute
preserves
validity
specter
statute
unconstitutionality
permitted
distort
antecedent
question
jurisdiction
courts
interpret
evaluate
statute
confirming
authority
adjudicate
case
decline
adjudicate
federal
right
fear
potential
unconstitutionality
effect
invalidate
right
quest
save
permit
commission
acts
violate
federal
right
mere
suspicion
congress
acted
beyond
authority
suit
must
assumed
vindicate
supremacy
clause
poses
serious
affront
state
sovereignty
light
options
available
state
program
may
proceed
observations
join
opinion
virginia
office
protection
advocacy
petitioner
james
stewart
iii
commissioner
virginia
department
behavioral
health
developmental
services
et
al
writ
certiorari
appeals
fourth
circuit
april
chief
justice
roberts
justice
alito
joins
dissenting
today
holds
state
agency
may
sue
officials
acting
behalf
state
federal
never
happened
order
reach
unsettling
result
extends
fiction
ex
parte
young
called
empty
formalism
well
beyond
circumstances
case
subscribe
substantial
novel
expansion
also
called
narrow
exception
state
sovereign
immunity
respectfully
dissent
federal
system
established
constitution
preserves
sovereign
status
alden
maine
confirmed
eleventh
amendment
integral
component
residuary
inviolable
sovereignty
immunity
private
suits
federal
maritime
south
carolina
ports
authority
internal
quotation
marks
omitted
hans
louisiana
inherent
nature
sovereignty
amenable
suit
individual
without
quoting
federalist
hamilton
preeminent
purpose
state
sovereign
immunity
accord
dignity
consistent
status
sovereign
entities
federal
maritime
supra
accordingly
time
state
haled
federal
dignity
respect
afforded
state
sovereign
immunity
designed
protect
placed
jeopardy
idaho
coeur
tribe
idaho
immunity
turn
whether
relief
awarded
eleventh
amendment
concerned
ability
withstand
suit
privilege
sued
puerto
rico
aqueduct
sewer
authority
metcalf
eddy
see
federal
maritime
supra
primary
function
sovereign
immunity
protect
state
treasuries
afford
dignity
respect
due
sovereign
entities
citation
omitted
key
role
state
sovereign
immunity
plays
federal
system
recognized
exceptions
immunity
sole
one
relevant
narrow
exception
seminole
tribe
florida
established
decision
ex
parte
young
ex
parte
young
held
private
litigants
seek
injunction
federal
state
official
prohibiting
enforcing
state
law
claimed
violate
federal
constitution
see
often
observed
ex
parte
young
rests
obvious
fiction
couer
tribe
supra
suit
really
state
rather
individual
stripped
official
representative
character
unlawful
conduct
ex
parte
young
supra
consistently
acknowledged
important
role
ex
parte
young
plays
promot
ing
vindication
federal
rights
cautious
give
decision
expansive
interpretation
pennhurst
state
school
hospital
halderman
indeed
history
ex
parte
young
jurisprudence
largely
focused
ensuring
narrow
exception
narrowly
construed
example
held
fiction
ex
parte
young
extend
suits
plaintiff
seeks
retroactive
relief
edelman
jordan
claimed
violations
based
state
law
pennhurst
supra
federal
law
violation
longer
ongoing
green
mansour
congress
prescribed
detailed
remedial
scheme
enforcement
state
claimed
federal
right
seminole
tribe
supra
special
sovereignty
interests
implicated
couer
tribe
supra
recently
stated
determining
whether
doctrine
ex
parte
young
avoids
eleventh
amendment
bar
suit
need
conduct
straightforward
inquiry
whether
complaint
alleges
ongoing
violation
federal
law
seeks
relief
properly
characterized
prospective
verizon
md
public
serv
internal
quotation
marks
omitted
every
plaintiff
complies
prerequisites
able
bring
suit
ex
parte
young
indeed
verizon
went
beyond
straightforward
inquiry
considering
whether
ex
parte
young
applied
deciding
plaintiffs
clearly
satisfie
straightforward
inquiry
went
examine
whether
congress
created
detailed
remedial
scheme
like
one
seminole
tribe
internal
quotation
marks
omitted
determining
congress
done
conclude
suit
go
forward
ex
parte
young
verizon
formulation
set
forth
requirements
bringing
action
ex
parte
young
two
recent
precedents
wrongly
decided
seminole
tribe
acknowledged
often
found
federal
jurisdiction
suit
state
official
suit
seeks
prospective
injunctive
relief
order
end
continuing
violation
federal
law
internal
quotation
marks
omitted
held
however
situation
presented
sufficiently
different
giving
rise
traditional
ex
parte
young
action
preclude
availability
doctrine
couer
tribe
recognized
allegation
ongoing
violation
federal
law
requested
relief
prospective
ordinarily
sufficient
invoke
young
fiction
emphasis
added
held
however
action
proceed
ex
parte
young
implicated
special
sovereignty
interests
case
state
property
rights
certain
submerged
lands
explained
papasan
allain
certain
types
cases
formally
meet
young
requirements
state
official
acting
inconsistently
federal
law
stretch
case
far
upset
balance
federal
state
interests
embodies
one
cases
refusing
extend
ex
parte
young
claims
involve
special
sovereignty
interests
coeur
tribe
warned
rote
application
ex
parte
young
fiction
interpret
young
permit
action
proceed
every
case
prospective
declaratory
injunctive
relief
sought
officer
named
individual
capacity
adhere
empty
formalism
undermine
principle
eleventh
amendment
immunity
represents
real
limitation
federal
jurisdiction
real
interests
served
eleventh
amendment
sacrificed
elementary
mechanics
captions
pleading
application
young
exception
must
reflect
proper
understanding
role
federal
system
respect
state
courts
instead
reflexive
reliance
obvious
fiction
undisputed
petitioner
complaint
alleges
ongoing
violation
federal
law
state
official
seeks
prospective
relief
traditional
ex
parte
young
action
seminole
tribe
supra
petitioner
might
well
able
pursue
claims
case
however
anything
traditional
case
petitioner
anything
typical
ex
parte
young
plaintiff
unlike
plaintiffs
ex
parte
young
matter
unlike
plaintiff
ever
sought
invoke
ex
parte
young
petitioner
state
agency
seeking
sue
officials
state
federal
troubled
novelty
ante
enough
see
free
enterprise
fund
public
company
accounting
oversight
slip
perhaps
telling
indication
severe
constitutional
problem
lack
historical
precedent
internal
quotation
marks
omitted
cf
alden
printz
especially
true
light
presumption
articulated
years
ago
hans
louisiana
immune
suits
anomalous
unheard
constitution
adopted
hans
see
also
alden
supra
invoking
presumption
accordingly
determining
whether
lift
bar
sovereign
immunity
attribute
great
significance
absence
analogous
suits
time
founding
many
years
thereafter
federal
maritime
sort
suit
anomalous
unheard
time
founding
anomalous
unheard
yesterday
hans
presumption
applies
full
force
speculates
suits
previously
arisen
necessary
conditions
state
agencies
pursuing
federal
right
free
internal
state
veto
novel
see
ante
see
also
ante
kennedy
concurring
even
true
simply
highlights
fact
case
suitable
mere
rote
application
ex
parte
young
addition
novel
character
petitioner
complaint
conflicts
directly
principles
federalism
underlie
eleventh
amendment
pennhurst
alden
held
state
sovereign
immunity
prohibited
congress
authorizing
private
suits
nonconsenting
courts
explained
power
permit
one
branch
state
government
state
courts
coerce
branches
state
turn
state
ibid
goes
suit
features
state
agency
one
side
state
executive
officials
objection
alden
federal
government
force
state
defend
extending
young
forces
state
defend
federal
sides
case
exercise
sovereign
power
commonwealth
virginia
petitioner
claims
title
commonwealth
virginia
complaint
app
respondents
state
officials
acting
official
capacity
whatever
decision
litigation
one
thing
clear
commonwealth
win
commonwealth
lose
today
holding
federal
judge
resolve
part
commonwealth
prevail
virginia
consented
suit
federal
rather
petitioner
unilaterally
determined
intramural
dispute
resolved
forum
precisely
sovereign
immunity
supposed
guard
see
ante
specific
indignity
sovereign
immunity
protects
insult
state
haled
without
consent
indignity
compounded
state
haled
federal
federal
judge
decide
internal
state
dispute
wrong
suggest
virginia
sovereign
interest
determining
disputes
resolved
see
ante
one
thing
state
decide
components
may
sue
one
another
courts
virginia
quite
another
thing
dispute
resolved
federal
state
wishes
reason
examples
suits
pitting
state
entities
one
another
inapposite
hypotheticals
state
consented
particular
forum
resolve
internal
conflict
true
sum
special
sovereignty
interests
implicated
make
case
sufficiently
different
giving
rise
traditional
ex
parte
young
action
preclude
availability
doctrine
seminole
tribe
cling
reality
extend
fiction
ex
parte
young
cover
petitioner
suit
ii
offers
several
justifications
expansion
ex
parte
young
none
persuasive
first
contends
whether
ex
parte
young
fiction
applied
turns
relief
sought
case
ante
internal
quotation
marks
omitted
correct
several
prior
cases
focused
nature
relief
requested
see
edelman
may
well
difference
type
relief
barred
eleventh
amendment
permitted
ex
parte
young
many
instances
day
night
wrong
draw
negative
implication
cases
categorically
conclude
basis
determining
whether
extend
ex
parte
young
fiction
thrust
argument
appears
relief
sought
different
sought
suit
private
protection
advocacy
system
doctrine
ex
parte
young
also
apply
suit
brought
state
system
ante
private
entities
different
public
ones
private
private
litigants
involved
state
turned
contrary
suggestion
see
ante
indeed
real
difference
suit
state
brought
private
party
one
brought
state
agency
difference
eating
cannibalism
murder
patricide
ultimate
results
may
full
stomach
dead
body
means
getting
attracts
notice
think
affront
someone
dignity
sued
brother
sued
stranger
neither
may
welcomed
mean
equally
received
also
contends
petitioner
ability
sue
state
officials
federal
consequence
virginia
decision
establish
public
protection
advocacy
system
ibid
mean
virginia
consented
infringement
sovereignty
argument
rejected
petitioner
seek
certiorari
issue
see
virginia
reinhard
pet
cert
instead
claims
virginia
blame
wanted
avoid
current
predicament
chosen
establish
private
entity
instead
ante
see
also
ante
kennedy
concurring
aware
doctrine
effect
unconstitutional
establishment
insulated
challenge
simply
constitutional
alternative
available
public
private
systems
interchangeable
alternatives
event
analysis
also
circular
wrongly
assumes
virginia
knew
advance
answer
question
presented
case
concluding
ex
parte
young
applies
arrangement
first
time
history
state
agency
may
sue
unwilling
state
federal
suggest
virginia
knowingly
exposed
officers
suit
federal
similar
vein
asserts
virginia
law
authorizes
petitioner
exercise
independent
litigating
authority
petitioner
treated
litigant
ante
petitioner
like
litigant
true
petitioner
enjoys
independence
state
executive
branch
mean
petitioner
independent
state
noted
petitioner
certainly
views
commonwealth
virginia
app
presumably
invoke
sovereign
immunity
sued
matter
sovereign
immunity
law
make
difference
state
chooses
allocate
governmental
powers
among
different
state
agencies
officials
wrong
suggest
simply
petitioner
possesses
independent
litigating
authority
may
sue
state
officials
federal
see
ante
eleventh
amendment
presents
obstacle
since
virginia
law
created
petitioner
gave
power
sue
state
officials
case
merely
whether
petitioner
needs
approval
attorney
general
sue
virginia
code
provisions
cited
say
nothing
actions
state
federal
independent
litigating
authority
takes
scores
state
entities
suddenly
possess
authority
pursue
ex
parte
young
actions
state
officials
federal
reinhard
supra
eleventh
amendment
impediment
suits
given
number
state
agencies
across
country
enjoy
independent
litigating
authority
see
brief
state
indiana
et
al
amici
curiae
decision
today
potentially
lead
sorts
litigation
federal
courts
addressing
internal
state
government
disputes
also
reason
think
holding
limited
state
agency
plaintiffs
according
basic
rationale
state
officials
enjoy
level
independence
matter
federal
law
bring
suit
state
officials
federal
disputes
formerly
resolved
state
cabinet
rooms
may
appear
dockets
federal
courts
one
questions
continued
vitality
importance
doctrine
announced
ex
parte
young
ex
parte
young
affording
relief
private
party
unconstitutional
state
action
resolving
dispute
two
different
state
actors
matter
state
sort
federal
judge
decision
chisholm
georgia
dall
permitting
sued
private
parties
federal
created
shock
surprise
throughout
country
eleventh
amendment
proposed
adopted
principality
monaco
mississippi
fair
say
today
decision
probably
trigger
similar
response
however
much
practical
functions
prominence
may
changed
past
years
remain
vital
element
political
structure
sovereign
immunity
ensures
retain
stature
commensurate
role
constitution
allowing
one
part
state
sue
another
federal
federal
judge
decides
important
dispute
state
officials
undermines
state
sovereignty
unprecedented
direct
way
fiction
ex
parte
young
extended
permit
real
intrusion
believe
novel
expansion
ex
parte
young
inconsistent
federal
system
established
constitution
respectfully
dissent
footnotes
eleventh
amendment
reads
follows
judicial
power
shall
construed
extend
suit
law
equity
commenced
prosecuted
one
citizens
another
state
citizens
subjects
foreign
state
recognized
congress
may
abrogate
state
immunity
acts
fourteenth
amendment
seminole
tribe
florida
acts
original
article
authority
regulate
commerce
dissent
mistaken
claims
applying
verizon
maryland
test
mean
two
cases
wrongly
decided
post
opinion
roberts
discuss
first
cases
coeur
tribe
infra
second
seminole
tribe
supra
inapposite
reason
refused
permit
suit
proceed
case
indian
gaming
regulatory
act
created
alternative
remedial
scheme
undermined
permitting
ex
parte
young
suits
congress
said
foreclosed
recourse
doctrine
see
seminole
tribe
supra
respondents
argue
first
time
litigation
dd
paimi
acts
effect
reject
suggestion
fact
federal
government
exercise
oversight
federal
spending
program
even
withhold
withdraw
funds
chief
statutory
features
respondents
point
demonstrate
congress
displayed
intent
provide
complete
immediate
relief
otherwise
available
ex
parte
young
verizon
maryland
quoting
seminole
tribe
dissent
compares
vopa
lawsuit
indignities
cannibalism
patricide
since
greater
affront
someone
dignity
sued
brother
sued
stranger
post
think
dissent
principle
familial
affront
less
universally
applicable
even
respect
real
families
never
mind
governmental
siblings
us
probably
prefer
contesting
testamentary
disposition
relative
contesting
stranger
confining
one
child
room
called
grounding
confining
stranger
child
called
kidnaping
jurisdiction
case
depend
apt
comparison
dissent
accuses
us
circular
reasoning
wrongly
assum
virginia
knew
advance
answer
question
presented
case
post
true
relying
commonwealth
waiver
sovereign
immunity
rely
upon
ex
parte
young
say
virginia
blame
position
finds
consented
suit
created
state
entity
sue
instead
leaving
task
private
entity
know
allow
suit
federal
know
know
ex
parte
young
produces
result
dissent
agrees
plan
post
quoting
mckesson
division
alcoholic
beverages
tobacco
dept
business
regulation
adjudicate
disputes
state
agencies
without
offending
sovereign
immunity
explaining
away
exceptions
theory
advance
ball
demonstrated
sovereign
immunity
anything
say
federal
courts
adjudicating
interagency
disputes
occasion
pass
questions
federalism
case
whether
dd
paimi
acts
proper
exercise
congress
enumerated
powers
justice
kennedy
whether
acts
run
afoul
constitutional
provision
besides
eleventh
amendment
permitted
distort
antecedent
question
jurisdiction
post
concurring
opinion
think
greatly
exaggerated
dissent
concern
iven
number
state
agencies
across
country
enjoy
independent
litigating
authority
today
decision
potentially
lead
sorts
litigation
federal
courts
addressing
internal
state
government
disputes
post
litigation
occur
unless
state
agency
given
federal
right
vindicate
vopa
alleges
given
highly
unusual
statute
issue
footnotes
ex
parte
young
also
rests
irony
official
unconstitutional
conduct
constitutes
state
action
fourteenth
amendment
eleventh
amendment
pennhurst
state
school
hospital
halderman
internal
quotation
marks
omitted
agree
seminole
tribe
refused
permit
suit
proceed
ex
parte
young
congress
foreclosed
recourse
doctrine
ante
simply
confirms
point
availability
young
depends
whether
verizon
prescribed
inquiry
satisfied
short
seminole
tribe
makes
clear
plaintiff
files
complaint
alleg
ing
ongoing
violation
federal
law
seeks
relief
properly
characterized
prospective
verizon
internal
quotation
marks
omitted
may
nonetheless
barred
pursuing
action
young
sovereign
immunity
principles
course
prohibit
reviewing
federal
questions
presented
suit
filed
state
see
ante
held
inherent
constitutional
plan
state
takes
cognizance
case
state
assents
appellate
review
federal
issues
raised
case
whoever
may
parties
original
suit
whether
private
persons
state
mckesson
division
alcoholic
beverages
tobacco
dept
business
regulation
internal
quotation
marks
citation
omitted
contrast
nothing
inherent
constitutional
plan
warrants
lower
federal
courts
handling
intrastate
disputes
absent
state
consent