of the Supreme Court of Pennsylvania and part of the “unified judicial system,” is an arm of the state. See Callahan v. City of Philadelphia, 207 F.3d 668, 672 (3d Cir.2000) (“All courts and agencies of the unified judicial system ... are part of ‘Commonwealth government’ and thus are state rather than local agencies.”). As a state agency, the Board has Eleventh Amendment immunity. See id. Therefore, as an arm of the state, Lucas may not sue the Board unless one of the three exceptions to Eleventh Amendment immunity apply. See MCI Telcomm. Corp., 271 F.3d at 503 (listing immunity exceptions). On appeal, Lucas argues that the Ex Parte Young exception precludes the bar of the Eleventh Amendment to the present action against the Board. Howe 44, 116 S.Ct. 1114, 134 L.Ed.2d 252 (1996) (<HOLDING>). Neither of these exceptions are applicable in
holding that the medicaid act does not provide the type of detailed remedial scheme that would supplant an ex parte young action holding that the cwa does not include a remedial scheme sufficient to preclude an ex parte young action holding that a remedial scheme created by congress even if incapable of addressing all of plaintiffs injuries precluded a bivens action holding that existence of a detailed remedial scheme shows congressional intent to prohibit recourse to the ex parte young fiction holding that young will not apply where congress has created a detailed remedial scheme for the enforcement of a federal statutory right against a state