Task: Wrong Candidate Generation
Input (English): against state officials to conform their official conduct in the future to the Constitution or federal law. See Idaho v. Coeur d’Alene Tribe of Idaho, 521 U.S. 261, 268-69, 117 S.Ct. 2028, 138 L.Ed.2d 438 (1997). Furthermore, such prospective injunctive relief is not barred by the Eleventh Amendment if the future consequences of the injunction required payment of money from the state’s treasury, so long as the payment has “an ancillary effect on the state treasury.” Edelman, 415 U.S. at 668, 94 S.Ct. 1347. In most cases in which Ex parte Young has applied, the primary relief ordered by the court has been injunctive, requiring future compliance by state officials with the Constitution or federal law. See, e.g., Papasan v. Allain, 478 U.S. 265, 106 S.Ct. 2932, 92 L.Ed.2d 209 (1986)(<HOLDING>); Edelman v. Jordan, 415 U.S. 651, 94 S.Ct. 
 Holding statements: (A) holding that a request for injunctive relief was merely incidental to a prayer for damages where it was designed to facilitate and ensure the satisfaction of any monetary relief the court might award (B) holding that the medicaid act provision allowing reduction of funds to noncompliant states is not a detailed remedial scheme sufficient to show congresss intent to preempt an action under ex parte young (C) holding that title ii ada suits and rehabilitation act suits for prospective injunctive relief may be brought under ex parte young against state officers in their official capacities (D) holding that a court may award injunctive relief against a state officer (E) holding that ex parte young permitted injunctive relief in equal protection challenge to states distribution of public school land funds because the expenditure of state funds that might accompany the injunction did not amount to an award for monetary liability
Output (English): holding that a court may award injunctive relief against a state officer