Talk:Ex parte Young

U.S. Supreme Court cases High‑importance

	This article is part of WikiProject U.S. Supreme Court cases, a collaborative effort to improve articles related to Supreme Court cases and the Supreme Court. If you would like to participate, you can edit the article attached to this page, or visit the project page.U.S. Supreme Court casesWikipedia:WikiProject U.S. Supreme Court casesTemplate:WikiProject U.S. Supreme Court casesU.S. Supreme Court articles
High	This article has been rated as High-importance on the importance scale.

Law High‑importance

	Law portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Law, an attempt at providing a comprehensive, standardised, pan-jurisdictional and up-to-date resource for the legal field and the subjects encompassed by it.LawWikipedia:WikiProject LawTemplate:WikiProject Lawlaw articles
High	This article has been rated as High-importance on the project's importance scale.

The following references may be useful when improving this article in the future:

"Ex parte Young". www.fjc.gov. Thurgood Marshall Federal Judiciary Building: Federal Judicial Center. Retrieved 18 October 2018.

[Untitled]

I think this could have more info on the Supremacy Clause - i.e. why these legal fictions were created, rather than a simpler assertion that the Supremacy Clause trumped the 11th where a conflict occured. [krm]

No one who believes in sovereign immunity claims that originates in the 11th Amendment. Rather, it is claimed that it originates in the Constitution, was partially (and incorrectly) eliminated under the Chisholm decision, and that the Chisholm decision was overriden by a very narrow, specific amendment (the 11th Amendment) to reinstate the original character of sovereign immunity under the Constitution (see the Alden decision).

Therefore, I changed the characterization that an officer could still be a private person for 11th Amendment purposes to that he could be a private person for sovereign immunity purposes.

Contextualization

As a citizen of a State. I have noticed contextualization by state employees, How can I sue for "vested intrest" if a state employee hides behind "color of law". And States Attorney claims "immunity" for employee, even when the plaintiff has physical evidence? 174.255.0.19 (talk) 18:29, 29 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]