884 (D.C.Cir.2008). By contrast, in Larson v. Domestic & Foreign Commerce Corp., 337 U.S. 682, 689, 69 S.Ct. 1457, 93 L.Ed. 1628 (1949), the Court dismissed an action brought against the head of the War Assets Administration alleging that he had refused to deliver coal that he had contracted to sell to the plaintiff and seeking an injunction prohibiting him from selling or delivering that coal to anyone else, because the relief sought was “against the sovereign.” And while the Court has sometimes decided takings claims without considering Eleventh Amendment immunity, see, e.g., Brown v. Legal Found, of Wash., 538 U.S. 216, 123 S.Ct. 1406, 155 L.Ed.2d 376 (2003); Lucas v. S.C. Coastal Council, 505 U.S. 1003, 112 S.Ct. 2886, 120 L.Ed.2d 798 (1992 auro, 21 P.3d 667, 674 (5th Cir.1994) (<HOLDING>); Citadel Corp. v. P.R. Highway Auth., 695 F.2d
recognizing that section 1981 claims against a state agency are barred by the eleventh amendment holding that the district court correctly determined that the foundations fifth amendment inverse condemnation claim brought directly against the state of texas was barred by the eleventh amendment recognizing that section 1983 claims against a state agency are barred by the eleventh amendment recognizing that claims against a state under  1981 are barred by the eleventh amendment holding that sovereign immunity barred a federal question suit against a state brought by one of its own citizens even though the text of the eleventh amendment only addresses suits brought by citizens of another state