set forth in the complaint alleges a violation of both the federal constitution and federal statutes. See Complaint ¶¶ 48-68. The complaint also clearly asks for prospective relief. . See Complaint, “Relief Sought” ¶¶ 1-4. Specifically, the Plaintiffs ask for a determination that portions of North Dakota’s hunting regulations are unconstitutional and for a permanent injunction preventing the Defendants from any attempts to enforce these provisions. The only portion of the complaint that could conceivably be construed as a request for a monetary disbursement is thé request f ts found that the “special sovereignty interests” of states were implicated so that Coeur d’Alene would operate to bar the suit. See MacDonald v. Village of Northport Michigan, 164 F.3d 964, 972 (6th Cir.1999) (<HOLDING>); ANR Pipeline v. Lafaver, 150 F.3d 1178, 1193
recognizing that palmyra is under united states sovereignty holding that a states great interest in maintaining access to the great lakes was a special sovereignty interest that precluded an ex parte young suit holding states property interest in right to profits from a recreational land lease did not rise to the level of a special sovereignty interest holding a states regulation of liquor was not a special sovereignty interest in part because of the pervasive federal interest in the regulation of liquor holding the governors emergency powers to take private property for the public benefit was a special sovereignty interest but the relief requested was not so much of a divestiture of the states sovereignty to render the suit as one against the state itself