to comply with the trial court’s injunc-tive orders. The parties are unable to provide this Court with any precedent directly addressing this issue; indeed, this Court has found no caselaw addressing whether § 14 prevents the trial court from assessing contempt sanctions against the State. “‘It is clear that the particular sanctions in this case “directly affect the financial status of the state treasury.” Lyons, 858 So.2d at 261. While the counties claim that the sanctions punish the commissioner for his contempt and seek to compel compliance with the court’s orders, the effect of the trial court’s order is to impact the treasury and divest it of funds. Section Ik, however, forbids such an assault on the state treasury. See Lyons, 858 So.2d at 261; see also Patterson, 835 So.2d at 142 (<HOLDING>); and Southall v. Stricos Corp., 275 Ala. 156,
holding that such claims however cannot be brought directly against the state or a state agency but only against state officials in their official capacities holding that  14 prevents the state from being sued and a suit against the state  cannot be indirectly accomplished by suing its officers or agents in their official capacity when a result favorable to plaintiff would be directly to affect the financial status of the state treasury quoting state docks commn v barnes 225 ala 403 405 143 so 581 582 1932 holding that  14 prevents an action against the state when a result favorable to the plaintiff would directly affect a contract or property right of the state holding that a declaratoryjudgment action against the state that would affect property in which the state had an interest was barred by  14 holding that a suit against a state official in his or her official capacity is a suit against the state itself and not cognizable under  1983