cite to a portion of the Coeur d’Alene opinion wherein Justice Kennedy described two instances where the Ex parte Young doctrine has been applied to prohibit suits against states or state official acting in their official capacity. First, where no state forum is available and second, where the case calls for an interpretation of federal law. However, this approach was set forth in a portion of the Coeur d’Alene opinion with which a majority of the Supreme Court disagreed. As a result, thi holding an action to determine whether state regulations prohibiting duck blinds on areas to which the plaintiffs’ asserted riparian fishing rights did not implicate the “special sovereignty interests” of the state); Duke Energy Trading and Marketing L.L.C. v. Davis, 267 F.3d 1042 (9th Cir.2001) (<HOLDING>); In re Ellett, 254 F.3d 1135 (9th Cir.2001)
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 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 tribal sovereignty is dependent on and subordinate to only the federal government not the states recognizing that a suit by the national government against a state does no violence to the inherent nature of sovereignty 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