Opinion ID: 759207
Heading Depth: 4
Heading Rank: 3

Heading: Is the relief sought permissible prospective relief?

Text: 24 Plaintiffs argue the relief they request will have no effect on the state treasury of New Mexico because they seek only prospective compliance with federal law. However, the prospective/retrospective analysis is often not as simple as it appears. In many instances, even prospective relief will burden the state's treasury to some degree. Edelman, 415 U.S. at 668, 94 S.Ct. 1347. The overriding question is not whether the relief will require the payment of state funds, but whether the relief will remedy future rather than past wrongs. Coeur d'Alene Tribe, 42 F.3d at 1252 (An injunction that will in practical effect require payment of funds out of the state treasury is nonetheless permissible if it requires only that officials conform their future actions to federal law. (Internal citation omitted.)). 25 Even though the request for relief against the state officials in this case will affect New Mexico's interest in profits under the assignment clause of the lease, the relief will have no retrospective effect. The relief Plaintiffs seek will only affect the state's right to future revenues. While this may cause difficulties for New Mexico and require additional expenditures from the state's coffers in order to effectively operate and maintain the affected recreation areas, it does not transform Plaintiffs' claim into an impermissible request for retrospective relief or damages. 26 The state officials also argue the Ex parte Young doctrine does not allow the courts to interfere with their discretionary acts. Although this general premise is sound, Ex parte Young does not extend this rule to preclude judicial review of discretionary acts that violate federal law. See 209 U.S. at 158-59, 28 S.Ct. 441 (holding the state officials' general discretion regarding the enforcement of the laws ... is not interfered with by an injunction which restrains the state officer from taking any steps towards the enforcement of an unconstitutional enactment, to the injury of the complainant.). In the present case, it is true the law will not permit the courts to force New Mexico officials into negotiating changes in lease agreements, but it certainly permits the courts to vindicate federal rights. Plaintiffs have sufficiently alleged a federal violation, and we will not deny jurisdiction solely on the basis that a ruling might indirectly impact state officials' discretionary acts. 27 Even if Plaintiffs meet all the traditional requirements for the application of the Ex parte Young doctrine we have discussed above, that does not automatically allow the suit to proceed in federal court. The rule from Coeur d'Alene Tribe requires a more thorough investigation into the nature of the claim, the state's interest and the potential effect of the requested relief in order to determine what sovereign interests the court's decision might affect and whether federal jurisdiction is appropriate. 28