it is hardly the duty of federal courts to intervene in state-law tax questions. N. 18, supra. As we suggest, n. 22, supra, the Federal District Court in respondent’s pending 1978 litigation may evaluate her latest claim in light of the “efficient” prong of our analysis, now that the Assessor and Board of Appeals are aware of the Circuit Court of Cook County’s adjudication and apparently have nevertheless repeated their prior assessment practices. The dissent’s third factor — delay—and fourth factor — failure to pay interest — are addressed above. 28 The Tax Injunction Act was only one of several statutes reflecting congressional hostility to federal injunctions issued against state officials in the aftermath of this Court's decision in Ex parte Young, 209 U. S. 123, 155— 156 (1908) (<HOLDING>). See generally Perez v. Ledesma, supra, at
holding that eleventh amendment does not bar federal suit against state official for prospective injunctive relief holding that eleventh amendment bars federal suits against state courts holding that the eleventh amendment does not bar federal courts from enjoining unconstitutional actions of state officers recognizing the eleventh amendment does not bar the united states from suing a state holding that the eleventh amendment does not bar the united states from asserting an indemnity claim against a state