him from engaging in conduct that he has a desire to engage in, running for Congress. Therefore, the Supreme court’s decision in Lyons is not controlling here. Gralike has satisfied the requirements for bringing a claim for injunctive relief in this case. C. Eleventh Amendment Immunity Defendant argues that this suit is barred by the Eleventh Amendment to the United States Constitution. The Eleventh Amendment provides: “The Judicial power of the United States shall not be construed to extend to any suit in law or equity, commenced or prosecuted against one of the United States by Citizens of another State____” U.S. Const.Amend. XI. In addition to protecting states from suits by citizens of other states as the plain language of the Eleventh Amendment a, 124 F.3d 904, 914 (8th Cir.1997) (<HOLDING>); In re SDDS, Inc., 97 F.3d 1030, 1035 (8th
holding that the eleventh amendment does not prevent private individuals from bringing suit against state officials for prospective injunctive or declaratory relief for ongoing violations of federal law holding young applicable in an action to enjoin state officials from enforcing a law in violation of the commerce clause holding an exception to eleventh amendment immunity inapplicable in a suit against state officials on the basis of state law holding that sovereign immunity barred a suit against state officials when the relief sought required state officials to retroactively pay federal benefits 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