made in a distinctly different context. The Court recognizes that the two statutes are similar in some ways, but dissimilar in others such as in comparing the scopes of the substantive rights protected and Congress’s intent with respect to available remedies outside the statutes themselves. The law is not so clear in light of the Kendall case alone to warrant the Court changing its opinion on this issue in which it carefully analyzed the various arguments and existing case law. Nevertheless, money damages are not recoverable against a state and its officials acting in their official capacities under § 1983 alone because there is no abrogation of the states’ Eleventh Amendment immunity. See Will v. Michigan Dept. of State Police, 491 U.S. 58, 66, 109 S.Ct. 2304, 105 L.Ed.2d 45 (1989) (<HOLDING>). As the Court discussed in its opinion of
holding that congress did not intend to disturb the states eleventh amendment protection in passing  1983 holding that congress did not properly abrogate states eleventh amendment immunity from suits under the patent act holding that  1983 does not override states eleventh amendment immunity holding that  1983 does not override a states eleventh amendment immunity holding that congress did not intend to abrogate eleventh amendment immunity in enacting 42 usc  1983