## Facts

- The Virginia Office for Protection and Advocacy (VOPA) is Virginia’s federally required protection-and-advocacy system for individuals with mental illness and developmental disabilities, structured as an independent state agency with authority to litigate using its own counsel.
- While investigating deaths and injuries at Virginia state mental hospitals, VOPA requested access to certain patient records.
- State officials who managed the facilities refused to provide the records, asserting state-law privilege.
- VOPA sued the officials in their official capacities in federal court, seeking declaratory and injunctive relief requiring production of the records and preventing future interference with VOPA’s federal access rights.
- The officials moved to dismiss on Eleventh Amendment sovereign immunity grounds.

## Issues

1. Whether the Eleventh Amendment categorically bars an independent state agency from suing state officials in federal court for prospective injunctive relief to stop an ongoing violation of federal law under Ex parte Young.

## Decision

- The Supreme Court reversed the Fourth Circuit in a 6–2 decision (Justice Scalia).
- The Court held that Ex parte Young permits a federal court to hear a suit for prospective relief against state officials even when the plaintiff is another agency of the same State.
- Because VOPA sought prospective injunctive relief against officials for alleged ongoing violations of federal law, the Eleventh Amendment did not bar the action.
- Justice Kennedy (joined by Justice Thomas) concurred, emphasizing VOPA’s institutional independence and Virginia’s choice to empower it to sue.
- Chief Justice Roberts (joined by Justice Alito) dissented, viewing the ruling as an improper extension of Ex parte Young to intra-state disputes in federal court.

## Legal Principles

- Under Ex parte Young, the Eleventh Amendment does not bar suits in federal court seeking prospective relief against state officials in their official capacities to end ongoing violations of federal law.
- The applicability of Ex parte Young turns on the nature of the relief sought and the official-capacity status of the defendants, not on whether the plaintiff is a private party or a state-created entity.
- A State’s creation of an independent agency with authority to litigate can permit that agency to invoke Ex parte Young to obtain prospective compliance with federal law from other state officials.

## Conclusion

The Court held that sovereign immunity does not categorically prevent a state-created independent agency from suing state officials in federal court for prospective injunctive relief; Ex parte Young applies because the suit targets ongoing unlawful conduct by officials and seeks forward-looking compliance with federal law.


Va. Off. for Prot. & Advoc. v. Stewart, 563 U.S. 247 (2011)