See Doe v. Chiles, 136 F.3d 709, 720 (11th Cir.1998) (asserting, without addressing special sovereignty interest’ requirement, that case in which developmentally disabled individuals brought § 1983 action against officials for failure to furnish Medicaid assistance with reasonable promptness “fit neatly within the Ex parte Young exception”); Marie O. v. Edgar, 131 F.3d 610, 616-17 & n. 13 (7th Cir.1997) (finding no important sovereignty interests such as those at issue in Coeur d’Alene Tribe in suit brought by infants with disabilities against state officials alleging that state did not comply with early intervention requirements of IDEA and seeking to enforce compliance with the federal program under which the officials had accepted funds); cf. Elephant Butte, 160 F.3d at 612-13 (<HOLDING>). Additionally, a challenge to the
recognizing a life tenants power to lease not only her present interest in the land she occupies but also a future interest she owns in the same land holding states property interest in right to profits from a recreational land lease did not rise to the level of a special sovereignty interest holding that a states great interest in maintaining access to the great lakes was a special sovereignty interest that precluded an ex parte young suit holding a states regulation of liquor was not a special sovereignty interest in part because of the pervasive federal interest in the regulation of liquor holding the governors emergency powers to take private property for the public benefit was a special sovereignty interest but the relief requested was not so much of a divestiture of the states sovereignty to render the suit as one against the state itself