whether Young applies requires a case-by-case analysis in which a court must balance state interests against the federal interest in enforcing compliance with federal law. Id. at -, 117 S.Ct. at 2036-37. In deciding whether Young authorizes a federal suit in a particular case, the federal court must look to the “essential nature and effect of the proceeding.” Id. at-, 117 S.Ct. at 2038. For example, in cases where the plaintiff seeks to establish ownership over state resources or funds, or where the injunctive relief sought would require the state to pay substantial funds from its treasury, the state’s interest in the litigation is so substantial that an action against a state official under Young is not justified. Id. at-, 117 S.Ct. at 2038-39; see, e.g., id. at-, 117 S.Ct. at 2040-41 (<HOLDING>); Edelman v. Jordan, 415 U.S. 651, 94 S.Ct.
holding that an indian tribe is subject to suit only where congress has authorized the suit or the tribe has waived its immunity holding that as a matter of federal law an indian tribe is subject to suit only where congress has authorized the suit or the tribe has waived its immunity holding that sovereign immunity barred suit by indian tribe seeking to compel state officials to turn over ownership and control of disputed lands and waters holding that florida does not have jurisdiction in a suit by other persons against an indian tribe absent express waiver of tribal sovereign immunity holding that sovereign immunity barred a suit against state officials when the relief sought required state officials to retroactively pay federal benefits