## Facts

- Environmental organizations and an individual citizen brought a Clean Water Act (CWA) citizen suit alleging noncompliance with a stormwater permit governing polluted runoff from Southern California roadways and maintenance yards.
- Defendants included a state transportation agency and its director, a state official responsible for permit compliance.
- Defendants moved to dismiss on Eleventh Amendment sovereign-immunity grounds.
- The district court dismissed all claims against the state agency as an arm of the state.
- The district court also dismissed claims against the director seeking civil penalties and declaratory relief, but allowed claims seeking prospective injunctive relief against the director to proceed.
- After a ten-day bench trial, the district court found violations of the CWA permit and entered a permanent injunction requiring specific future compliance measures.
- The director appealed, challenging only the federal court’s authority to hear the CWA injunctive-relief claim against him in light of the Eleventh Amendment.

## Issues

1. Whether the Eleventh Amendment bars a CWA citizen suit in federal court seeking prospective injunctive relief against a state official for ongoing violations of federal law.
2. Whether the CWA’s citizen-suit provision or remedial structure precludes use of the Ex parte Young doctrine against a state official.

## Decision

- The Ninth Circuit affirmed the judgment.
- The court held the Eleventh Amendment did not bar the claim for prospective injunctive relief against the state official under Ex parte Young.
- The court accepted the dismissal of claims against the state agency and the dismissal of claims seeking civil penalties and declaratory relief against the official.
- The permanent injunction was upheld as forward-looking relief aimed at ending continuing violations of federal law.

## Legal Principles

- The Eleventh Amendment generally bars suits by private citizens against a state or its agencies in federal court absent consent.
- Under Ex parte Young, a suit against a state official in an official capacity may proceed when it seeks prospective injunctive relief to end an ongoing violation of federal law, and is not treated as a suit against the state.
- Relief that is retrospective or would operate as a monetary liability payable from the state treasury is barred, while forward-looking compliance orders may be permitted.
- The CWA citizen-suit provision authorizes suits against governmental actors only to the extent permitted by the Eleventh Amendment and does not, by itself, displace Ex parte Young suits for prospective injunctive relief.

## Conclusion

The Ninth Circuit held that, although the state transportation agency was immune from suit, a CWA citizen suit could proceed against the agency’s director for prospective injunctive relief under Ex parte Young to stop ongoing permit violations, and it affirmed the permanent injunction requiring future compliance actions.


Nat. Res. Def. Council v. Cal. Dep’t of Transp., 96 F.3d 420 (9th Cir. 1996)