The nature of judicial review - The Eleventh Amendment and s...

Learning Outcomes

This article explains the Eleventh Amendment and state sovereign immunity doctrine for MBE-style questions, including:

• The historical purpose of the Eleventh Amendment and how modern doctrine transforms its text into a broader principle limiting federal judicial power over suits against states and their agencies.
• The categories of defendants that are protected (states, arms of the state, officials in their official capacity) and those that are not (local governments, personal‑capacity defendants), and how to spot this quickly in multiple‑choice fact patterns.
• The kinds of remedies barred in federal court—especially damages and other retroactive monetary relief from the state treasury—and the forms of relief that remain available under Ex parte Young and other exceptions.
• The circumstances in which states can waive immunity or consent to suit, contrasted with situations where Congress can validly abrogate state immunity under Section 5 of the Fourteenth Amendment, and why Article I powers are insufficient.
• How broader structural sovereign immunity can bar suits in state courts or administrative proceedings even when the Eleventh Amendment’s text does not directly apply.
• A step‑by‑step issue‑spotting method for exam situations that integrates defendant status, forum, remedy, and source of congressional power to determine whether a given claim is barred.

MBE Syllabus

For the MBE, you are required to understand the constitutional limits on federal judicial power and state sovereign immunity, with a focus on the following syllabus points:

• The text, history, and modern construction of the Eleventh Amendment
• The scope of state sovereign immunity in federal and state forums
• Suits barred in federal court: who is protected and what remedies are unavailable
• Exceptions: state consent, Ex parte Young, suits by the United States or other states, and bankruptcy
• Congress’s power (and limits) to abrogate immunity under Section 5 of the Fourteenth Amendment
• Distinguishing between states, state agencies, state officials, and local governments for immunity purposes

Test Your Knowledge

Attempt these questions before reading this article. If you find some difficult or cannot remember the answers, remember to look more closely at that area during your revision.

1. Which of the following is generally barred by the Eleventh Amendment?
   1. A private citizen’s suit for damages against a state in federal court.
   2. A suit by the United States against a state in federal court.
   3. A suit by a private citizen against a city in federal court.
   4. A suit by one state against another state in the Supreme Court.
2. Congress may abrogate state sovereign immunity:
   1. By using its Article I commerce power.
   2. By using its Fourteenth Amendment enforcement power.
   3. By passing any statute it deems necessary.
   4. Only with the state’s consent.
3. Which of the following is NOT an exception to Eleventh Amendment immunity?
   1. Suits for prospective injunctive relief against state officials.
   2. Suits by the federal government against a state.
   3. Suits for damages against a state by a private citizen in federal court under the commerce clause.
   4. Suits against local governments for damages in federal court.

Introduction

The Eleventh Amendment and the broader doctrine of state sovereign immunity place important limits on federal judicial power. They define when federal courts may hear suits involving states and when individuals must instead seek other routes for relief. These doctrines are a recurring source of MBE questions because they sit at the intersection of federal jurisdiction, separation of powers, and individual rights.

At its core, Eleventh Amendment doctrine asks two questions:

• Is this defendant the kind of government entity that enjoys immunity?
• If so, has that immunity been waived, validly abrogated by Congress, or avoided through a doctrine such as Ex parte Young?

Understanding those two steps—and separating them from other jurisdictional issues like subject-matter jurisdiction and standing—is essential for answering MBE fact patterns accurately and quickly.

Key Term: Eleventh Amendment
The constitutional provision that bars most suits by private parties or foreign governments against states in federal court, as interpreted to reflect a broader principle of state sovereign immunity.

Key Term: State Sovereign Immunity
The doctrine that states cannot be sued without their consent. In modern doctrine, this includes (1) Eleventh Amendment limits on suits in federal court and (2) a parallel immunity from certain suits in state courts and before federal agencies.

Key Term: Structural Sovereign Immunity
The broader, judge‑made principle that the states retained a core immunity from private suits as part of the constitutional structure, beyond the literal text of the Eleventh Amendment.

Why This Topic Matters on the MBE

Eleventh Amendment questions often appear in disguised form. Instead of explicitly asking, “Is the suit barred by the Eleventh Amendment?”, a question might focus on:

• A § 1983 civil rights action filed against “State X” in federal court
• A federal statute that “authorizes private suits for damages against any state that violates this Act”
• A plaintiff who sues a state agency, not the state itself
• A request for “back pay” or “retroactive benefits” rather than prospective relief

On these questions, spotting that a state (or an arm of the state) is being sued for retroactive monetary relief in federal court is often the entire game.

A reliable exam approach is:

1. Identify the defendant (state, state agency, state official, local government, private party).
2. Identify the forum (federal court vs. state court vs. federal agency).
3. Identify the remedy (damages vs. prospective injunction vs. declaratory relief).
4. Identify the legal basis of the claim (Article I statute, Fourteenth Amendment statute, state law, federal common law, etc.).
5. Ask whether any exception applies: waiver, valid congressional abrogation, Ex parte Young, suit by the United States or another state, or the bankruptcy exception.

Everything else is detail.

The Eleventh Amendment: Text, History, and Purpose

The Eleventh Amendment provides that the judicial power of the United States does not extend to suits against a state by citizens of another state or foreign citizens. The text is limited, but the Supreme Court quickly expanded it.

Historically:

• In Chisholm v. Georgia, the Court allowed a citizen of South Carolina to sue Georgia in federal court.
• The political backlash led to adoption of the Eleventh Amendment, which was designed to restore states’ immunity from such suits.
• Later, in Hans v. Louisiana, the Court held that the Eleventh Amendment also bars suits by a state’s own citizens, even though the text does not say so.

Today, the Eleventh Amendment is read as a jurisdictional bar on certain federal suits against states, embodying a background principle of state sovereign immunity.

Key Term: Structural Sovereign Immunity
(revisited)
Modern cases treat the Eleventh Amendment as one expression of a deeper, structural immunity that states enjoy as sovereigns. That structural immunity explains why similar limits apply in some state‑court and administrative proceedings even though the Amendment, by its terms, governs only federal “judicial power.”

This structural view is reflected in more recent decisions:

• Alden v. Maine: States are immune from certain private suits under federal law in their own courts, absent consent.
• Franchise Tax Board v. Hyatt: States are generally immune from private suits in other states’ courts.
• Federal Maritime Commission v. South Carolina State Ports Authority: State sovereign immunity can apply in some federal administrative adjudications.

These cases show that Eleventh Amendment questions on the MBE sit inside a larger sovereign immunity framework, but exam questions almost always focus on federal court suits.

Eleventh Amendment vs. State Sovereign Immunity

Do not treat the phrases as interchangeable without thinking about context:

• Eleventh Amendment:

  • Limits federal courts’ jurisdiction over suits “against” states.
  • Focus for most MBE questions: whether a federal court can hear a particular suit against a state or an arm of the state.

• Broader sovereign immunity (beyond the Amendment):

  • Bars some suits against states in their own courts and in other states’ courts, and even before some federal administrative bodies.
  • For example, under Alden v. Maine, a private suit against a state in state court under a federal statute (e.g., the Fair Labor Standards Act) can still be barred, even though the Eleventh Amendment by its terms speaks only to federal courts.

Key Term: Sovereign Immunity in State Courts
The principle—grounded in the structure of the Constitution, not the Eleventh Amendment—that states are generally immune from private suits under federal law in their own courts, absent consent or valid congressional override under the Civil War Amendments.

On the MBE, most questions are about federal court jurisdiction, but you may see references to the wider doctrine (e.g., a private damages suit against a state in state court under a federal statute).

What Types of Suits Are Barred

The Eleventh Amendment, as interpreted, generally bars:

• Suits in federal court:

  • By private individuals (citizens or aliens) against a state for money damages or other retroactive relief payable from the state treasury.
  • By foreign governments against a state.
  • By Indian tribes against a state (treated like private plaintiffs for this purpose).

• Suits in federal court against:

  • A state itself, named as a defendant.
  • A state agency or instrumentality that is an “arm of the state.”

Key Term: Arm of the State
A state‑created entity that is so closely tied to the state (e.g., funding, control, function) that it shares the state’s Eleventh Amendment immunity. Examples often include state departments, state universities, and statewide commissions, especially when judgments are paid from the state treasury.

Key Term: Retroactive Relief
Relief that compensates for past violations, such as damages or orders to pay previously owed benefits, and that is effectively payable from the state treasury.

Suits seeking the following relief are typically barred if brought by private parties against a state or arm of the state in federal court:

• Money damages for past harms, payable from the state treasury
• Retroactive injunctive or declaratory relief requiring the state to pay out funds or undo past conduct (e.g., an order to pay back benefits wrongfully withheld in prior years)
• Actions equivalent to quiet title actions that would divest the state of ownership of land
• Suits that function as enforcement of state law against the state in federal court (barred for additional reasons discussed below)

Remember that Eleventh Amendment issues arise only when the defendant is a state or an arm of the state, and the forum is federal court (unless the question explicitly invokes broader sovereign immunity doctrine).

Who Is Protected—and Who Is Not

The Eleventh Amendment protects:

• States themselves
• State agencies and instrumentalities that qualify as arms of the state
• State officials sued in their official capacities when the effect of the suit is to reach the state treasury or control the state itself

Key Term: Official‑Capacity Suit
A suit nominally against a state officer but treated as a suit against the state itself when the requested relief would operate against the state (e.g., ordering the state to pay money, alter its policies, or convey its property).

By contrast, the Eleventh Amendment does not protect:

• Local governments:
  • Cities, counties, towns, and most school districts do not share Eleventh Amendment immunity.
  • They may be liable for damages under federal statutes (e.g., 42 U.S.C. § 1983) in federal court.

Key Term: Local Government
Political subdivisions such as cities and counties that are not arms of the state and therefore do not enjoy Eleventh Amendment immunity, although they may have defenses under other doctrines.

• State officials in their personal capacity:
  • A suit for damages against a state official personally is not treated as a suit against the state, even if the conduct occurred in the course of official duties.
  • The key is whether the judgment would be paid from the official’s assets rather than the state treasury.

Key Term: Personal‑Capacity Suit
A suit against a state official seeking to impose personal liability, with any damages paid by the official rather than the state treasury. Not barred by the Eleventh Amendment.

• State officials sued for prospective relief to end ongoing violations of federal law, under the Ex parte Young doctrine (discussed below).

Key Term: Ex parte Young Doctrine
A doctrine allowing federal courts to grant prospective injunctive or declaratory relief against state officials to stop ongoing violations of federal law, even though the state itself would be immune.

How to Tell Whether an Entity Is an “Arm of the State”

MBE questions sometimes require you to decide whether an entity is effectively the state itself. Courts look at several factors:

• How state law describes the entity (state agency vs. local body)
• The degree of state control over the entity’s operations
• Whether the entity’s funds come from the state treasury
• Most importantly: whether a judgment would be paid out of the state treasury

If the facts emphasize state‑wide jurisdiction, state funding, and state control, treat the entity as an arm of the state. If the facts emphasize local functions and local funding, treat it as a local government without Eleventh Amendment immunity.

What Relief Is Not Barred? The Ex parte Young Workaround

Ex parte Young is a critical exception, frequently tested.

Under Ex parte Young, a federal court may:

• Hear suits against state officials (not the state itself)
• In their official capacity
• Seeking prospective injunctive or declaratory relief
• To stop an ongoing violation of federal law

Key Term: Prospective Injunctive Relief
Court‑ordered relief that governs future conduct (e.g., “Do not enforce this statute going forward”), rather than compensating for past harm.

Key Term: Ongoing Violation of Federal Law
Conduct by state officials that is currently or imminently violating federal law. Ex parte Young does not apply to completed, wholly past violations with no continuing effects.

Examples:

• An order requiring a state officer to stop enforcing an unconstitutional statute
• An injunction compelling a state official to comply prospectively with a federal statute (e.g., to provide accommodations required by federal law going forward)
• A declaration that a state practice is unconstitutional, coupled with an order not to enforce it in the future

Limitations of Ex parte Young:

• It does not permit:
  • Retroactive damages payable from the state treasury
  • Orders requiring payment of money for past violations (e.g., “pay five years of back benefits”)
  • Suits based solely on state law violations in federal court (barred under Pennhurst State School & Hospital v. Halderman)
  • Suits where Congress has created a specific remedial scheme that displaces Ex parte Young (not common on the MBE)

On the MBE, if the plaintiff restructures the suit as one against a state official for forward‑looking relief under federal law, the action is typically allowed despite state immunity.

Exceptions to State Immunity

There are several important exceptions and workarounds to Eleventh Amendment immunity that you must recognize.

1. State Consent or Waiver

A state may waive its immunity and consent to be sued in federal court, but:

• The waiver must be clear and unequivocal:

  • Express statutory waiver (e.g., “The state consents to suit in federal court for violations of this statute”).
  • Express consent in litigation (e.g., the state’s attorney general stipulating on the record to defend the case on the merits in federal court).
  • In some circumstances, voluntarily removing a case from state court to federal court can be treated as a waiver as to that case.

• A state official cannot, by herself, waive the state’s immunity unless she has clear authority to do so.

Courts apply a “clear statement” rule: they will not find a waiver or consent based on ambiguous language or on general participation in federal programs.

2. Congressional Abrogation Under the Civil War Amendments

Congress can “abrogate” (override) state immunity only when:

• It acts pursuant to a valid grant of power under Section 5 of the Fourteenth Amendment (or, in limited ways, under the Thirteenth and Fifteenth Amendments), or in some contexts under the bankruptcy power, and
• It clearly expresses an intent to abrogate state immunity in the statute itself, and
• The legislation is congruent and proportional to remedying or preventing actual constitutional violations by states.

Key Term: Congressional Abrogation
A valid act of Congress removing states’ sovereign immunity in specified circumstances, typically under Section 5 of the Fourteenth Amendment, allowing private suits against states in federal court.

Key Term: Congressional Enforcement Power (Section 5)
The Fourteenth Amendment power allowing Congress to pass remedial legislation to enforce constitutional rights against states, including, in some circumstances, authorizing private suits for damages in federal court.

Key Term: Congruence and Proportionality
The requirement that Section 5 legislation be tailored so that its remedies reasonably respond to a pattern of state constitutional violations, rather than redefining constitutional rights.

Congress cannot abrogate state immunity using its Article I powers, such as:

• The Commerce Clause
• The Spending Power
• The Patent and Copyright Clause

This limitation appears frequently on the MBE: a statute enacted under the commerce power that purports to authorize private damages suits against states in federal court is not a valid abrogation.

Some examples (you do not need to memorize case names, but the patterns matter):

• Valid abrogation:

  • Certain applications of Title VII to state employers (race and sex discrimination) have been upheld as valid Section 5 enforcement.
  • Some family‑leave legislation, as applied to states, has been upheld where the law targeted proven patterns of unconstitutional gender discrimination.

• Invalid abrogation:

  • Congress’s attempt to use the commerce power to authorize private suits against states under the Age Discrimination in Employment Act and parts of the Americans with Disabilities Act was held invalid as abrogation.
  • The Religious Freedom Restoration Act (RFRA), as applied to the states, was struck down because it tried to expand substantive Free Exercise rights, not merely to remedy constitutional violations.

3. Suits by the United States or by Other States

Eleventh Amendment immunity does not bar:

• Suits by the United States against a state in federal court
• Suits by one state against another state in the Supreme Court’s original jurisdiction

In those cases, the concern about private plaintiffs undermining state dignity is absent.

4. Bankruptcy Proceedings

The Supreme Court has held that the Eleventh Amendment does not bar certain actions in bankruptcy courts that directly affect state financial interests, because the bankruptcy power carries its own limitations on state immunity.

Key Term: Bankruptcy Exception
The principle that some bankruptcy proceedings (e.g., discharge of debts owed to a state, avoidance of preferential transfers involving a state) may proceed despite state sovereign immunity, based on Congress’s Article I bankruptcy power.

For the MBE, it is enough to recognize:

• Bankruptcy proceedings are a narrow but real exception to state immunity in federal court.

5. State Sovereign Immunity in State Courts and Other Forums

Beyond the Eleventh Amendment:

• States are generally immune from private suits under federal law in their own courts without consent (Alden v. Maine).
• States are also immune from certain adjudicative proceedings before federal administrative agencies (Federal Maritime Commission v. South Carolina State Ports Authority).

These doctrines come up less frequently on the MBE but help explain why “sovereign immunity” can bar claims even when the Eleventh Amendment itself is not directly implicated.

Congress’s Power to Abrogate Immunity: A Step‑by‑Step Approach

To decide whether Congress has validly abrogated immunity in an MBE problem, walk through these steps:

1. Identify the defendant:
   • Is the defendant a state or an arm of the state? If not (e.g., city, county), Eleventh Amendment immunity is irrelevant.
2. Check the statute:
   • Does the statute clearly state that states can be sued by private parties in federal court? If not, there is no abrogation.
3. Source of power:
   • Is Congress acting under Section 5 of the Fourteenth Amendment (or occasionally the Thirteenth or Fifteenth Amendments)? If the statute is expressly based on Article I powers (e.g., commerce, spending), abrogation is invalid.
4. Congruence and proportionality:
   • Does the statute genuinely enforce existing Fourteenth Amendment rights—such as Equal Protection or Due Process—as defined by the Court?
   • Is the remedy tailored to actual or likely constitutional violations by states, or does it attempt to redefine the substance of the constitutional right?

If any of these steps fail, Eleventh Amendment immunity remains in place.

Suits Not Barred by the Eleventh Amendment

Pulling the threads together, the following are not barred:

• Suits in federal court against local governments:
  • Cities, counties, school districts, and other local entities without arm‑of‑the‑state status.
• Suits in federal court by:
  • The United States against a state
  • Another state against a state
• Suits in federal court against state officials:
  • For prospective injunctive or declaratory relief under Ex parte Young to stop ongoing violations of federal law
  • For damages in their personal capacity where the judgment would not be paid from the state treasury
• Certain bankruptcy proceedings affecting state claims or debts
• Suits where:
  • The state has clearly consented to suit in federal court, or
  • Congress has validly abrogated state immunity under Section 5 of the Fourteenth Amendment (or applicable Civil War Amendment authority)

Section 1983 and Sovereign Immunity

Many MBE questions involve 42 U.S.C. § 1983, which creates a cause of action against any “person” who, under color of state law, violates federal rights. Important points:

• States are not “persons” under § 1983, so you cannot sue a state directly under that provision.
• State officials in their official capacity are treated as the state itself for § 1983 damages and are therefore immune.
• State officials in their personal capacity are “persons” under § 1983 and may be sued for damages in federal court (subject to qualified immunity and other defenses).
• Local governments (cities, counties) are “persons” under § 1983 and do not enjoy Eleventh Amendment immunity.

This means that on a § 1983 fact pattern you must separate two questions:

1. Is the defendant a “person” under § 1983?
2. Even if so, does an Eleventh Amendment or sovereign immunity problem bar the suit in federal court?

Often, the immunity problem will exist only when the defendant is the state or an arm of the state, or when the relief sought is effectively against the state treasury.

Worked Example 1.1

A private citizen sues State X in federal court, seeking money damages for an alleged violation of federal law. State X moves to dismiss on Eleventh Amendment grounds. Should the court grant the motion?

Answer:
Yes. The Eleventh Amendment bars suits by private individuals for damages against a state in federal court unless the state consents or Congress validly abrogates immunity under the Fourteenth Amendment (or another applicable Civil War Amendment). Here, there is no indication of consent or valid abrogation, so the suit is barred.

Worked Example 1.2

Congress passes a law under the commerce clause allowing private individuals to sue states for damages in federal court for violations of the statute. A plaintiff sues State Y under this law. State Y moves to dismiss, arguing sovereign immunity. What result?

Answer:
The court should grant the motion. Congress cannot abrogate state immunity using its Article I powers, including the commerce clause. Only valid use of Fourteenth Amendment enforcement power (or certain bankruptcy legislation and, in limited circumstances, other Civil War Amendments) can override state immunity.

Worked Example 1.3

A state employee sues the state in federal court for back pay, alleging a violation of the Equal Protection Clause. The state moves to dismiss. The employee argues that Congress authorized such suits under a federal statute passed to enforce the Fourteenth Amendment. What must the court consider?

Answer:
The court must determine (1) whether Congress clearly expressed its intent to abrogate state immunity in that statute, and (2) whether the statute is a valid exercise of Fourteenth Amendment enforcement power—i.e., it is congruent and proportional to remedying actual equal protection violations by states. If both are satisfied, the suit may proceed; otherwise, it is barred.

Worked Example 1.4

A plaintiff sues the state department of transportation (a state agency funded from the state treasury) in federal court, seeking an injunction requiring payment of previously withheld benefits under a federal statute. The plaintiff names only the agency as defendant. The state moves to dismiss on Eleventh Amendment grounds. How should the court rule?

Answer:
The court should grant the motion. The agency is an arm of the state and shares the state’s immunity. The relief sought is effectively retroactive monetary relief payable from the state treasury. Because the suit is against the state (via its arm) and seeks retroactive payment, Ex parte Young does not apply.

Worked Example 1.5

An individual sues the director of a state environmental agency in federal court, alleging that the director is enforcing a state regulation that conflicts with a federal statute and seeking an order prohibiting future enforcement. The director moves to dismiss, asserting Eleventh Amendment immunity. What result?

Answer:
The motion should be denied. This is a classic Ex parte Young case: the plaintiff sues a state official (not the state), seeks prospective injunctive relief, and alleges an ongoing violation of federal law. The Eleventh Amendment does not bar such suits.

Worked Example 1.6

A plaintiff sues the director of a state mental health agency in federal court, alleging that the director is violating a state statute that guarantees certain procedural protections. The plaintiff seeks an injunction ordering the director to comply with the state statute. The director moves to dismiss on Eleventh Amendment grounds. What result?

Answer:
The motion should be granted. Under Pennhurst, Ex parte Young does not allow federal courts to order state officials to comply with state law. A federal court may not grant prospective relief based solely on state‑law violations against a state official. The suit is barred by principles of sovereign immunity.

Worked Example 1.7

A plaintiff files a § 1983 action in federal court against “State Z” and the director of the State Z Department of Corrections, seeking damages for past violations of the Eighth Amendment. The director is sued only in her official capacity. State Z moves to dismiss. What result?

Answer:
The motion should be granted. States are not “persons” under § 1983 and are immune under the Eleventh Amendment. An official‑capacity suit for damages is treated as a suit against the state, so the director shares the state’s immunity for damages. The plaintiff must instead sue the director (and any other responsible officials) in their personal capacity to seek damages.

Exam Warning

The Eleventh Amendment does not protect state officials from being sued for prospective injunctive relief to stop ongoing violations of federal law. However, claims for damages paid from the state treasury, or retroactive relief that has the same effect, remain barred unless the state consents or Congress validly abrogates immunity.

Common traps on the MBE:

• Treating a city or county as if it had Eleventh Amendment immunity. It does not.
• Assuming Congress can abrogate immunity under the Commerce Clause or other Article I powers. It cannot.
• Forgetting that a suit styled against an “agency” or an official in their official capacity is usually treated as a suit against the state.
• Misapplying Ex parte Young to:
  • Purely state‑law violations in federal court, or
  • Claims seeking retroactive monetary relief.
• Ignoring that states are not “persons” under § 1983, even apart from Eleventh Amendment issues.

Revision Tip

Always identify (1) the defendant (state, arm of state, official, local government), (2) the forum (federal vs. state court), (3) the remedy (prospective vs. retroactive, damages vs. injunctive), and (4) the source of congressional power (Article I vs. Fourteenth Amendment) before deciding whether Eleventh Amendment or sovereign immunity bars the claim.

Key Point Checklist

This article has covered the following key knowledge points:

• The Eleventh Amendment, as interpreted, bars most suits by private parties against states and arms of the state in federal court for damages or retroactive relief.
• State sovereign immunity extends beyond the Eleventh Amendment to some suits in state courts and before federal agencies, but local governments are not protected.
• Structural sovereign immunity reflects a broader constitutional principle that states retain core immunity from private suits unless they clearly consent or Congress validly overrides immunity under the Civil War Amendments.
• Suits against state officials for prospective injunctive relief under Ex parte Young are not barred, while suits seeking retroactive monetary relief from the state treasury are.
• State officials may be sued in their personal capacity for damages; such suits are not treated as suits against the state and are not barred by the Eleventh Amendment (though other defenses, such as qualified immunity, may apply).
• States can waive immunity, but waiver must be clear and unequivocal; casual participation in litigation is not enough on the MBE unless the facts say so.
• Congress may abrogate state immunity only when acting under valid Fourteenth Amendment (or other Civil War Amendment) enforcement power and with a clear statement; Article I powers like the commerce clause are insufficient.
• Valid Section 5 legislation must be congruent and proportional to documented constitutional violations by states; statutes that attempt to redefine the scope of rights are invalid as abrogation.
• Suits by the United States or by other states against a state are not barred by the Eleventh Amendment.
• Bankruptcy proceedings form a special, limited context in which state immunity does not preclude certain federal actions affecting state finances.
• States are not “persons” under § 1983, and official‑capacity suits for damages are treated as suits against the state; local governments are persons and may be sued under § 1983.
• Ex parte Young does not apply to suits seeking to enforce state law in federal court or to purely past violations with no ongoing federal‑law violation.

Key Terms and Concepts

• Eleventh Amendment
• State Sovereign Immunity
• Structural Sovereign Immunity
• Arm of the State
• Official‑Capacity Suit
• Personal‑Capacity Suit
• Local Government
• Prospective Injunctive Relief
• Retroactive Relief
• Ex parte Young Doctrine
• Ongoing Violation of Federal Law
• Congressional Abrogation
• Congressional Enforcement Power (Section 5)
• Congruence and Proportionality
• Bankruptcy Exception
• Sovereign Immunity in State Courts