in any case brought before it ..." 209 U.S. at 163, 28 S.Ct. 441. The Students do not seek to enjoin the Colorado Supreme Court from acting in a pending case. Moreover, the Students may bring a general challenge to bar admission rules promulgated by the Colorado Supreme Court. See District of Columbia Court of Appeals v. Feldman, 460 U.S. 462, 482-83, 103 S.Ct. 1303, 75 L.Ed.2d 206 (1983); Johnson v. Rodrigues (Orozco), 226 F.3d 1103, 1108 (10th Cir.2000). Second, the Board argues that the Students’ action is barred under the narrow exception to Ex parte Young set forth in Idaho v. Coeur d’Alene Tribe of Idaho, 521 U.S. 261, 117 S.Ct. 2028, 138 L.Ed.2d 438 (1997). This exception is inapplicable here because the Students seek only in-junctive relief. J.B. ex. rel. Hart, 186 F.3d at 1286 (<HOLDING>). III. Conclusion For the foregoing reasons,
recognizing the ex parte young  exception is narrow it applies only to prospective relief and does not permit judgments against state officers declaring that they violated federal law in the past holding that ex parte young exception to states sovereign immunity applies only where violation of federal law is ongoing not where federal law was violated only in the past holding that the eleventh amendment applies regardless of the nature of the relief sought holding that in a suit against state officials in their official capacities monetary relief unlike prospective injunctive relief is generally barred by the eleventh amendment holding that coeur dalene exception to ex parte young applies only if the plaintiffs action implicates special sovereignty interests and the relief sought is the functional equivalent to a form of legal relief against the state that would otherwise be barred by the eleventh amendment citation and internal quotations omitted