apply only to disciplinary actions taken by other licensing jurisdictions, as opposed to entities, such as individual courts and intermediate state appellate courts, that require already licensed lawyers to obtain a special certificate to practice before them. In this case, the federal district court judge held Stubbs in contempt of court based on his violation of a local court rule. While the federal district court had authority to discipline or suspend Stubbs from the practice of law in its court for misconduct or violation of its local rules, the federal court was not “another jurisdiction” within the meaning of Rule 9.4 in that it has no authority to confer or revoke Stubbs’ license to practice law. See Frazier v. Heebe, 482 U. S. 641, 648, n. 7 (107 SC 2607, 96 LE2d 557) (1987) (<HOLDING>); Theard v. United States, 354 U. S. 278, 281
holding that state sovereign immunity bars state constitutional claims holding that eleventh amendment bars federal suits against state courts holding the eleventh amendment bars suits in federal court against the state of kansas or one of its agencies recognizing autonomy of state and federal bars holding that failure to comply with state contemporaneous objection rule bars federal review absent a showing of cause and prejudice