purports to forbid? Footnote 11 cites a single case, North Carolina v. Temple, 134 U.S. 22, 10 S.Ct. 509, 33 L.Ed. 849 (1890), which concerned a private bondholder’s suit to compel a state auditor to levy a tax, the proceeds of which would be used to pay interest to holders of state bonds. In a half-page opinion, the Supreme Court dismissed the suit on sovereign immunity grounds. Id. at 30, 10 S.Ct. 509 (“We think it perfectly clear that the suit against the auditor in this case was virtually a suit against the State of North Carolina. In this regard it comes within the principle of the cases of [Ju-mel], [Cunningham], [Hagood], and [In re Ayers].”). Temple, in turn, cited four cases involving bondholders. See Louisiana v. Jumel, 107 U.S. 711, 720-23, 2 S.Ct. 128, 27 L.Ed. 448 (1883) (<HOLDING>); Cunningham v. Macon & Brunswick R.R. Co., 109
holding that sovereign immunity prevents mandamus action to compel state officers to levy a tax to pay bondholders holding that sovereign immunity prevents suit to enjoin state officer from bringing tax collection suits against persons who had paid taxes with bond coupons where such collection was alleged to breach bondholders contract and where specific performance of acceptance of coupons was requested holding that a state may waive its sovereign immunity holding that sovereign immunity prevents suit to compel state comptroller general to levy a tax to fund redemption of revenue bond scrip holding that sovereign immunity prevents bondholders foreclosure suit