binding on these proceedings.” From the district court’s order awarding NHEMA attorneys fees, costs, and expenses, Virginia filed this appeal. II Virginia contends first that sovereign immunity precludes an award of attorneys fees against State officers when no violation of the Fourteenth Amendment has been alleged. It argues that, in light of recent Supreme Court jurisprudence, such as Seminole Tribe v. Florida, 517 U.S. 44, 116 S.Ct. 1114, 134 L.Ed.2d 252 (1996), the authority of district courts to award attorneys fees against State actors should be reexamined. But as Virginia recognizes, this argument is squarely at odds with Supreme Court cases allowing awards of attorneys fees against State actors. See Hutto v. Finney, 437 U.S. 678, 695, 98 S.Ct. 2565, 57 L.Ed.2d 522 (1978) (<HOLDING>); Missouri v. Jenkins, 491 U.S. 274, 279-80,
holding that the eleventh amendment immunity bars title i employment discrimination claims against a state for monetary damages holding an exception to eleventh amendment immunity inapplicable in a suit against state officials on the basis of state law holding that even though attorneys fees were not properly awardable under rule 68 costs excluding fees were mandatory holding that eleventh amendment bars federal suits against state courts holding that because attorneys fees have traditionally been regarded as costs which have long been awardable against a state they may be awarded against a state without regard for the states eleventh amendment immunity