in the statute itself, that it intends the statute to do so. The Supreme Court has explained that Congress must express its intention to abrogate the Eleventh Amendment in “unmistakable language in the statute itself.” Atascadero State Hospital v. Scanlon, 473 U.S. 234, 243, 105 S.Ct. 3142, 3148, 87 L.Ed.2d 171 (1985). The Court has further noted, “We have been unwilling to infer that Congress intended to negate the States’ immunity from suit in federal court, given ‘the vital role of the doctrine of sovereign immunity in our federal system.’ ” Welch v. Texas Dept. of Hwys. & Transp., 483 U.S. 468, 474, 107 S.Ct. 2941, 2946, 97 L.Ed.2d 389 (1987). Thus, the courts examine the statute at issue carefully before finding abrogation See Atascadero, 473 U.S. at 239-40, 105 S.Ct. at 3146 (<HOLDING>); Welch v. Texas Dept. of Hwys. & Transp., 483
holding that an act of legislature may be required to waive sovereign immunity holding that the ats does not waive the united states sovereign immunity holding that a state may waive its sovereign immunity holding that the lanham act did not waive states sovereign immunity holding that statutes language any recipient lacked sufficient clarity to include states and therefore waive sovereign immunity