to impermissible claims for money damages against the Commonwealth. This argument mischar-aeterizes plaintiffs’ claims. Plaintiffs’ complaints are over how the amounts due to them should be calculated in the future. Their consistent arguments that defendant has adopted a methodology that contravenes the terms of § 1396a(bb) constitute allegations of an ongoing violation of federal law. See Verizon Md., Inc. v. Pub. Serv. Comm’n, 535 U.S. 635, 645-46, 122 S.Ct. 1753, 152 L.Ed.2d 871 (2002). To remedy this alleged violation, plaintiffs seek, as they have since 2003, prospective injunctive and declaratory relief of the sort permissible under Ex parte Young, 209 U.S. 123, 28 S.Ct. 441, 52 L.Ed. 714 (1908). See Edelman v. Jordan, 415 U.S. 651, 667-68, 94 S.Ct. 1347, 39 L.Ed.2d 662 (1974) (<HOLDING>). The claims at issue here are thus permissible
recognizing that ex parte young allows claims that would have an ancillary effect on the state treasury where such an effect is the necessary result of compliance with decrees which by their terms were prospective in nature 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 holding that title ii ada suits and rehabilitation act suits for prospective injunctive relief may be brought under ex parte young against state officers in their official capacities holding that the cwa does not include a remedial scheme sufficient to preclude an ex parte young action holding that judgments for prospective relief that have an ancillary effect on the state treasury do not offend the eleventh amendment