Opinion ID: 161480
Heading Depth: 2
Heading Rank: 3

Heading: Seeking permissible prospective equitable relief

Text: 14 Under the third element, we must find that the plaintiffs are seeking prospective equitable relief, rather than retroactive monetary relief. As we have recognized, however, in applying this distinction we ask not whether the relief will require the payment of state funds, but whether the relief will remedy future rather than past wrongs. Elephant Butte, 160 F.3d at 611 (internal quotation marks omitted). Because the main question is whether the relief will remedy an ongoing wrong rather than whether it will require payment of state funds, courts may grant prospective relief with a substantial ancillary effect on a state treasury. ANR Pipeline Co. v. Lafaver, 150 F.3d 1178, 1189 (10th Cir. 1998). The plaintiffs in the case before us clearly seek prospective equitable relief: they ask that state officials be compelled to comply with federal statutes that allegedly entitle them to the reasonably prompt provision of waiver services. They are not, for example, asking to be reimbursed for past home or community-based services. The relief sought simply requires that officials conform their future actions to federal law, Elephant Butte, 160 F.3d at 611 (internal quotation marks omitted), and any effect on the state treasury is, therefore, ancillary. 15