prospective in-junctive relief. Blanciak v. Allegheny Ludlum Corp., 77 F.3d 690, 697 (3d Cir.1996). The claim for prospective injunctive relief must, however, be based upon federal law; regardless of the type of relief sought, the Eleventh Amendment bars claims in federal court against state officials that are based upon state law. Pennhurst, 465 U.S. at 121, 104 S.Ct. at 919. Applying these principals to the instant case, plaintiff conceded at oral argument that defendant the Supreme Court of Pennsylvania is an arm of the state of Pennsylvania and therefore protected by the Eleventh Amendment. See, e.g., Pa. Const, art. 5, §§ 1, 2 (creating the Pennsylvania state judicial system, including the Supreme Court); Landers Seed Co. v. Champaign Nat’l Bank, 15 F.3d 729, 731-32 (7th Cir.1994) (<HOLDING>), cert. denied, — U.S. -; 115 S.Ct. 62, 130
holding that eleventh amendment bars federal suits against state courts holding the eleventh amendment bars suits in federal court against the state of kansas or one of its agencies holding that the eleventh amendment bars retrospective declaratory relief against state officials holding that the eleventh amendment bars blyshrl and nychrl claims against a state agency in federal court holding that the eleventh amendment immunity bars title i employment discrimination claims against a state for monetary damages