of federally-funded welfare programs for chüdren in its custody involves important state interests, those interests do not implicate the ‘essential attribute^] of sovereignty’ with which Co-eur d’Alene was concerned. Therefore, we hold that Coeur d’Alene does not remove this action from the scope of the Ex -parte Young doctrine.” Joseph A, 262 F.3d at 1120 (internal citations omitted). Coeur d’Alene does not serve as a bar to Plaintiffs’ EPSDT Medicaid Act count, see Doe v. Chiles, 136 F.3d 709, 720 (11th Cir.1998), Plaintiffs’ ASFA count, see Joseph A. v. Ingram, 262 F.3d 1113 (10th Cir.2001), or the Title VI claims. See Sandoval v. Hagan, 197 F.3d 484 (11th Cir.1999) rev’d on other grounds sub nom. Alexander v. Sandoval, 532 U.S. 275, 121 S.Ct. 1511, 149 L.Ed.2d 517 (2001) (<HOLDING>). 2. Detailed Remedial Scheme — Seminole Tribe
holding that eleventh amendment does not bar federal suit against state official for prospective injunctive relief holding that eleventh amendment does not bar suits for prospective injunctive relief against state officials in their official capacity holding that the doctrine of sovereign immunity barred a claim for money damages against the librarian of congress in his official capacity because immunity had not been waived and the exceptions to immunity did not apply holding that there is an exception to eleventh amendment immunity for actions seeking declaratory and injunctive relief against state officials for alleged violations of federal law holding state waived sovereign immunity by receiving federal funds and that prospective injunctive relief is still available against director in his official capacity for continuing violations