only remaining defendants are the two individuals named in their official capacities, narrowing our inquiry concerning Eleventh Amendment immunity to whether the plaintiffs’ claims fall within the Ex parte Young doctrine, which allows plaintiffs to seek prospective equitable relief for violations of federal law by state officials. We conclude Ex parte Young applies and affirm the district court’s denial of the defendants’ motion to dismiss based on Eleventh Amendment immunity. II. Standard of Review Because an assertion of Eleventh Amendment immunity involves questions of law, we review the district court’s decision de novo. See Powder River Basin Resource Council v. Babbitt, 54 F.3d 1477, 1483 (10th Cir.1995); see also Dang v. UNUM Life Ins. Co., 175 F.3d 1186, 1189 (10th Cir.1999) (<HOLDING>). III. Eleventh Amendment Immunity Although
holding that statutory construction is a question of law which this court reviews de novo recognizing that appellate court reviews questions of law de novo recognizing that this court reviews de novo the trial courts interpretation and application of a statute to undisputed facts holding that an appellate court reviews a trial courts grant of a summary judgment motion de novo because it is a question of law holding appellate court reviews legal conclusions de novo