this argument. District Court Opinion, 675 F.Supp.2d at 672-73. 11 . Though it is somewhat difficult to glean its argument, EIA also appears to challenge the procedural validity of the Three-Part Test due to HEW’s failure to comply with the "laying-before” requirement of the General Education Provisions Act (GEPA), 20 U.S.C. § 1232(d)(1). That provision required final HEW regulations to be presented to Congress, whose disapproval could prevent the regulation from taking effect. 20 U.S.C. § 1232(d)(1). In any event, EIA concedes, albeit inartfully, that HEW carefully considered the requirements imposed by GEPA and found that they did not apply to its 1979 Policy Interpretation. Reply Br. 21. See also Letter from Patricia Roberts Harris, Secretary of Health, Education, L.Ed. 714 (1908) (<HOLDING>); United States v. Texas, 143 U.S. 621, 644-45,
holding that eleventh amendment does not bar suits for prospective injunctive relief against state officials in their official capacity holding that the eleventh amendment precludes an award of injunctive or declaratory relief that is not prospective in nature holding that there is an exception to eleventh amendment immunity for actions seeking declaratory and injunctive relief against state officials for alleged violations of federal law holding that eleventh amendment does not bar federal suit against state official for prospective injunctive relief 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