See Ex parte Young, 209 U. S. 123, 159-160 (1908). While that objection would be supported by precedent today, it would not have been apparent to the Framers. The Ex parte Young doctrine was not finally settled until over a century after the framing and the enactment of the first bankruptcy statute. Indeed, we have recently characterized the doctrine as an expedient '‘fiction” necessary to ensure the supremacy of federal law. See Pennhurst State School and Hospital v. Halderman, 465 U. S. 89, 114, n. 25 (1984); see also Idaho v. Coeur d’Alene Tribe of Idaho, 521 U. S. 261, 281 (1997). 15 We do not mean to suggest that every law labeled a “bankruptcy” law could, consistent with the Bankruptcy Clause, properly impinge upon state sovereign immunity. 16 Cf. Hoffman, 492 U. S., at 101 (<HOLDING>). Justice Thomas, with whom The Chief Justice,
holding that congress may abrogate a states immunity pursuant to its enforcement power under  5 of the fourteenth amendment holding that congress had no power under article i to abrogate state sovereign immunity holding that congress could not abrogate state sovereign immunity pursuant to the patent clause of article i holding that in an earlier version of 11 u s c  106 congress had failed to make sufficiently clear its intent to abrogate state sovereign immunity holding that although congress expressed its intent to abrogate eleventh amendment immunity in 11 usc  106a it could not do so under seminole tribe