context: In the instant case, no comparable special sovereignty interests are at stake. A state's interest in administering a welfare program at least partially funded by the federal government is not such a core sovereign interest as to preclude the application of Ex parte Young.
citation_a.signal: cf.
citation_a.identifier: 160 F.3d 612, 612-13
citation_a.parenthetical: holding state's property interest in right to profits from a recreational land lease did not rise to the level of a "special sovereignty interest"
citation_a.sentence: See Doe v. Chiles, 136 F.3d 709, 720 (11th Cir.1998) (asserting, without addressing special sovereignty interest’ requirement, that case in which developmentally disabled individuals brought § 1983 action against officials for failure to furnish Medicaid assistance with reasonable promptness “fit neatly within the Ex parte Young exception”); Marie O. v. Edgar, 131 F.3d 610, 616-17 & n. 13 (7th Cir.1997) (finding no important sovereignty interests such as those at issue in Coeur d’Alene Tribe in suit brought by infants with disabilities against state officials alleging that state did not comply with early intervention requirements of IDEA and seeking to enforce compliance with the federal program under which the officials had accepted funds); cf. Elephant Butte, 160 F.3d at 612-13 (holding state’s property interest in right to profits from a recreational land lease did not rise to the level of a “special sovereignty interest”).
citation_b.signal: see
citation_b.identifier: 136 F.3d 709, 720
citation_b.parenthetical: asserting, without addressing special sovereignty interest' requirement, that case in which developmentally disabled individuals brought SS 1983 action against officials for failure to furnish Medicaid assistance with reasonable promptness "fit neatly within the Ex parte Young exception"
citation_b.sentence: See Doe v. Chiles, 136 F.3d 709, 720 (11th Cir.1998) (asserting, without addressing special sovereignty interest’ requirement, that case in which developmentally disabled individuals brought § 1983 action against officials for failure to furnish Medicaid assistance with reasonable promptness “fit neatly within the Ex parte Young exception”); Marie O. v. Edgar, 131 F.3d 610, 616-17 & n. 13 (7th Cir.1997) (finding no important sovereignty interests such as those at issue in Coeur d’Alene Tribe in suit brought by infants with disabilities against state officials alleging that state did not comply with early intervention requirements of IDEA and seeking to enforce compliance with the federal program under which the officials had accepted funds); cf. Elephant Butte, 160 F.3d at 612-13 (holding state’s property interest in right to profits from a recreational land lease did not rise to the level of a “special sovereignty interest”).