Question: Did Employment Division v. Smith and Ex parte Young both have somone acting on their behalf?

Context paragraphs:
Criminal law in the Waite Court: During the tenure of Morrison Waite as Chief Justice of the Supreme Court of the United States (March 4, 1874 through March 23, 1888), the Supreme Court heard an unprecedented volume and frequency of criminal cases.  In just fourteen years, the Court heard 106 criminal cases, almost as many cases as the Supreme Court had heard in the period from its creation to the appointment of Waite as Chief Justice.  Notable cases include "United States v. Cruikshank" (1875), "United States v. Reese" (1875), "Reynolds v. United States" (1878), "Wilkerson v. Utah" (1879), the "Trade-Mark Cases" (1879), "Strauder v. West Virginia" (1880), "Pace v. Alabama" (1883), "United States v. Harris" (1883), "Ex parte Crow Dog" (1883), "Hurtado v. California" (1884), "Clawson v. United States" (1885), "Yick Wo v. Hopkins" (1886), "United States v. Kagama" (1886), "Ker v. Illinois" (1886), and "Mugler v. Kansas" (1887).

Ex parte Bowman: Ex Parte Bowman 61 USPQ 2d 1669 (Bd.  Pat.  App.  & Int.  2001) was a decision by the U.S. Board of Patent Appeals and Interferences which asserted that in order to be patent-eligible, a process had to involve or promote the technological arts.  This decision was overruled by the Board's subsequent "Ex Parte Lundgren" decision, but the Board's and then the Federal Circuit's In re Bilski opinion then superseded "Lundgren".  "In re Bilski", however, rejects use of "not in the technological arts" as a basis for a rejection, although it seems to accept the concept when differently named.  "Bilski" is now pending on writ of certiorari.

Criminal law in the Chase Court: The Chase Court (1864–1873) issued thirty-five opinions in criminal cases over nine years, at a significantly higher rate than the Marshall Court or Taney Court before it.  Notable such cases include "Ex parte Milligan" (1866), "Pervear v. Massachusetts" (1866), "Ex parte McCardle" (1867, 1869), "Ex parte Yerger" (1868), and "United States v. Kirby" (1868).

Seminole Tribe of Florida v. Florida: Seminole Tribe of Florida v. Florida, 517 U.S. 44 (1996) , was a United States Supreme Court case which held that Article One of the U.S. Constitution did not give the United States Congress the power to abrogate the sovereign immunity of the states that is further protected under the Eleventh Amendment.  Such abrogation is permitted where it is necessary to enforce the rights of citizens guaranteed under the Fourteenth Amendment as per "Fitzpatrick v. Bitzer" 427 U.S. 445 (1976).  The case also held that the doctrine of "Ex parte Young", 209 U.S. 123 (1908), which allows state officials to be sued in their official capacity for prospective injunctive relief, was inapplicable under these circumstances, because any remedy was limited to the one that Congress had provided.

Ex parte Endo: Ex parte Endo, or Ex parte Mitsuye Endo, 323 U.S. 283 (1944), was a United States Supreme Court ex parte decision handed down on December 18, 1944, in which the Justices unanimously ruled that the U.S. government could not continue to detain a citizen who was "concededly loyal" to the United States.  Although the Court did not touch on the constitutionality of the exclusion of people of Japanese ancestry from the West Coast—which they had found not to violate citizen rights in their "Korematsu v. United States" decision on the same date—the Endo ruling nonetheless led to the reopening of the West Coast to Japanese Americans after their incarceration in camps across the U.S. interior during World War II.

Idaho v. Coeur d'Alene Tribe of Idaho: Idaho v. Coeur d'Alene Tribe of Idaho, 521 U.S. 261 (1997), was a United States Supreme Court case in which the Court held that the Coeur d'Alene Tribe could not maintain an action against the state of Idaho to press its claim to Lake Coeur d'Alene due to the state's Eleventh Amendment immunity from suit, notwithstanding the exception recognized in "Ex parte Young".  The case was an important precedent for aboriginal title in the United States and sovereign immunity in the United States.

Ex parte McQuillon: Ex parte McQuillon, 16 F. Cas.  347 (1861), was a case decided in August 1861 by United States district court for the southern district of New York involving a writ of habeas corpus.  Judge Betts issued the writ for Purcell McQuillon, who was being held in military custody at Fort Lafayette, but the commandant of the fort declined to bring McQuillon before the court as demanded, citing an order from Gen. Winfield Scott.  Over the objection of McQuillon's attorney, Judge Betts took no further action on the case, declaring that it would be indecorous to openly disagree with Chief Justice Taney's reasoning in "ex parte Merryman", but that the Constitution must be defended in whatever way it can be and the public would not want everyone to have access to habeas corpus during the Civil War.

Ex parte Young: Ex parte Young, 209 U.S. 123 (1908) , is a United States Supreme Court case that allows suits in federal courts against officials acting on behalf of states of the union to proceed despite the State's Sovereign immunity, when the State acted unconstitutionally.

Employment Division v. Smith: Employment Division, Department of Human Resources of Oregon v. Smith, 494 U.S. 872 (1990) , is a United States Supreme Court case that held that the state could deny unemployment benefits to a person fired for violating a state prohibition on the use of peyote, even though the use of the drug was part of a religious ritual.  Although states have the "power" to accommodate otherwise illegal acts performed in pursuit of religious beliefs, they are not "required" to do so.

Ex parte Quayle: Ex parte Quayle, 25 USPQ 74, 1935 C.D. 11; 453 O.G. 213 (Comm'r Pat.  1935) is a United States patent law decision.  When a patent application is in condition for allowance, prosecution on the merits is closed.  At this time, further amendments of the patent application are allowed only to correct formal objections, which typically include minor and obvious mistakes.  The presence of such formal objections precludes the full closing of prosecution; therefore, in these situations, the United States Patent and Trademark Office (USPTO) issues an "Ex parte Quayle" Office action requesting the applicant to correct the formal objections.

Supporting paragraphs: Employment Division v. Smith Ex parte Young
Answer: no