at 1034-35, we are compelled by our precedent to decide the Eleventh Amendment issue first. See Martin v. Kansas, 190 F.3d 1120, 1126 (10th Cir.1999) (“Because the State’s assertion of Eleventh Amendment immunity challenges the subject matter jurisdiction of the district court, the issue must be resolved before a court may address the merits of Martin’s underlying ADA claim.”), overruled on other grounds by Bd. of Trustees of the Univ. of Ala. v. Garrett, 531 U.S. 356, 121 S.Ct. 955, 148 L.Ed.2d 866 (2001). Once effectively raised, the Eleventh Amendment becomes a limitation on our subject-matter jurisdiction, and we may not then assume “hypothetical jurisdiction” to reject a plaintiffs claim on the merits. Id.; cf. Fent v. Okla. Water Res. Bd., 235 F.3d 553, 558-59 (10th Cir.2000) (<HOLDING>). Some statutory questions are both logically
holding that failure to allege plaintiffs citizenship in notice of removal amounted to defect in removal procedure under former version of 28 usc  1447c holding that under 28 usc  1447c and d federal jurisdiction terminates once a section 1447c remand order has been mailed to the state court holding that a proper eleventh amendment challenge strips the courts of jurisdiction for the purposes of the removal statute 28 usc  1447c holding that the supreme court of pennsylvania is a state entity for purposes of the eleventh amendment holding that a county is not an arm of the state for purposes of the eleventh amendment