held that the plaintiff had failed to meet the requirements necessary to seek an injunction against the defendant’s alleged choke hold policy because he could not show a sufficient likelihood that he would be subjected to a chokehold in the future. Id. In contrast to the plaintiff in Lyons, Gralike has alleged facts that support his claims that he faces irreparable injury if the Article VIII Amendment is enforced. Here, it is not a matter of speculation whether Gralike will be subject to the alleged illegal government conduct in the future. If he becomes a candidate, Gralike will be subject to the state law that he claims is unconstitutional. Even as an individual who desires to become a candidate, Gralike faces injury because allegedly the mere threat of enforcement will kee 1996) (<HOLDING>). Here, Gralike asserts that the recent
holding that citizens of iowa and wisconsin could bring suit to enjoin minnesota officials from enforcing state law setting railroad rates that allegedly deprived them of property without due process of law holding young applicable in an action to enjoin state officials from enforcing a law in violation of the commerce clause holding that ex parte young permits jurisdiction over officials who have authority to control the assessments of railroad taxes that are in violation of federal law holding that eleventh amendment did not bar an action in federal courts seeking to enjoin a state attorney general from enforcing a statute claimed to violate the us constitution holding that indian tribes suit against state officials to enjoin them from committing ongoing violations of federal treaty rights fell within the young exception to sovereign immunity