Task: Wrong Candidate Generation
Input (English): Amendment, federal power extend[s] to intrude upon the province of the Eleventh Amendment....” Seminole Tribe, 517 U.S. at 58-60, 116 S.Ct. 1114. Nonetheless, the Supreme Court has never held that private parties may sue states without Congress first passing implementing legislation under the Fourteenth Amendment, § 5. Indeed, Seminole Tribe continues its discussion of the Fourteenth Amendment’s “intrufsion] upon the province of the Eleventh Amendment” by stating that “therefore ... § 5 of the Fourteenth Amendment allow[s] Congress to abrogate the immunity from suit guaranteed by that Amendment.” Id. at 59, 116 S.Ct. 1114 (emphasis added); see Pennhurst, 465 U.S. at 99-100, 119-121, 104 S.Ct. 900 (citing Quern v. Jordan, 440 U.S. 332, 342, 99 S.Ct. 1139, 59 L.Ed.2d 358 (1979) (<HOLDING>)). Similarly, the Supremacy Clause dictates 
 Holding statements: (A) holding that  1983 does not override states eleventh amendment immunity (B) recognizing absolute immunity to suits under 42 usc  1988 (C) holding that a state is not a person under 42 usc  1983 (D) holding that suits under 42 usc  1983 do not override state immunity (E) holding that  1983 does not override a states eleventh amendment immunity
Output (English): holding that a state is not a person under 42 usc  1983