Task: Wrong Candidate Generation
Input (English): to IGRA. For the following reasons, plaintiffs other claims against the state defendants are also dismissed. 1. State of Kansas and Kansas State Gaming Agency a. Eleventh Amendment Immunity The State and the KSGA contend the Eleventh Amendment to the United States Constitution bars suits for damages in federal court against a state or a state’s agencies. It is well settled that, in the absence of consent, the Eleventh Amendment to the United States Constitution prohibits the State of Kansas or one of its agencies from being sued in federal court. See Ambus v. Granite Bd. of Educ., 975 F.2d 1555, 1560 (10th Cir.1992)(citing Edelman v. Jordan, 415 U.S. 651, 662-63, 94 S.Ct. 1347, 39 L.Ed.2d 662 (1974)); Reiger v. Kansas Pub. Employees Retirement Sys., 755 F.Supp. 360, 361 (D.Kan.1990)(<HOLDING>). This principal holds true regardless of the 
 Holding statements: (A) holding that state agencies are treated as states under the eleventh amendment (B) holding that eleventh amendment bars federal suits against state courts (C) holding the eleventh amendment bars suits in federal court against the state of kansas or one of its agencies (D) holding that the eleventh amendment bars retrospective declaratory relief against state officials (E) holding that the eleventh amendment bars blyshrl and nychrl claims against a state agency in federal court
Output (English): holding that the eleventh amendment bars retrospective declaratory relief against state officials