Opinion ID: 787518
Heading Depth: 2
Heading Rank: 4

Heading: The applicability of the Ex parte Young exception to Eleventh Amendment immunity

Text: 26 Left to address the simple question whether the district court correctly found that Plaintiffs properly have proceeded under Ex parte Young, we agree with the district court. Plaintiffs allege that Defendants' failure to admit them to the HCS and CLASS programs violates § 1396a(a)(3), Title II, and § 504. Further, they seek injunctive and declaratory relief. 10 Thus, the complaint alleges an ongoing violation of federal law and seeks relief properly characterized as prospective. Verizon, 535 U.S. at 645, 122 S.Ct. 1753 (internal quotation marks omitted). Plaintiffs have therefore satisfied the Supreme Court's straightforward inquiry, and we hold that the Eleventh Amendment does not apply to this suit. See P.R. Aqueduct & Sewer Auth., 506 U.S. at 146, 113 S.Ct. 684 ( Young and its progeny render the [Eleventh] Amendment wholly inapplicable to a certain class of suits.).