Dairy Mart’s complaint alleges that Kentucky officials are in continued violation of federal law and thus clearly satisfies the straightforward inquiry test. See Verizon, 535 U.S. at 645, 122 S.Ct. 1753. According to the complaint, the officials refuse to give effect to § 108(b) of the bankruptcy code and to accept the claims of Dairy Mart as timely filed; and in so doing, they are in violation of Chapter 11 of the United States Bankruptcy Code, the purpose of which is to provide respite to the debtor so that it may rehabilitate its affairs. The officers’ significant responsibilities overseeing the Fund — including the approval of submitted claims — create the requisite connection to the illegal act. See Ex parte Young, 209 U.S. at 157, 28 S.Ct. 441; CSX Tramp., Inc., 306 F.3d at 99 (<HOLDING>). In the district court proceedings, appellants
holding young applicable in an action to enjoin state officials from enforcing a law in violation of the commerce clause holding that ex parte young permits jurisdiction over officials who have authority to control the assessments of railroad taxes that are in violation of federal law holding that ex parte young exception to states sovereign immunity applies only where violation of federal law is ongoing not where federal law was violated only in the past holding that the cwa does not include a remedial scheme sufficient to preclude an ex parte young action recognizing the ex parte young  exception is narrow it applies only to prospective relief and does not permit judgments against state officers declaring that they violated federal law in the past