portion of the Coeur d’Alene opinion is not controlling. The Court will confine its review of the Coeur d’Alene exception to the standard articulated by a majority of the Supreme Court — whether the special sovereignty interests of a state .are implicated by the action. Since Coeur d’Alene, courts have narrowly defined the types of actions implicating the “special sovereignty interests” of a state. See 17 Charles Alan Wright, Arthur R. Miller, & Edward H. Cooper, Federal Practice and Procedure § 4232 n. 36.4 (2d ed. 1988 & Supp.2004) (collecting cases). In a variety of contexts, several circuit courts have held that state sovereignty interests were not implicated, and thus, the Coeur d’Alene exception did not bar the actions. See e.g., Nelson v. Ger-inger, 295 F.3d 1082 (10th Cir.2002) (<HOLDING>); Arnett v. Myers,. 281 F.3d 552 (6th Cir.2002)
recognizing that a suit by the national government against a state does no violence to the inherent nature of sovereignty holding the governors emergency powers to take private property for the public benefit was a special sovereignty interest but the relief requested was not so much of a divestiture of the states sovereignty to render the suit as one against the state itself holding a states regulation of liquor was not a special sovereignty interest in part because of the pervasive federal interest in the regulation of liquor holding a states regulation of wyoming national guard was insufficient to implicate a special sovereignty interest because of the dual federal and state nature of national guard service holding that pennsylvania national guard members could be used for civilian law enforcement because they were not in federal service at the time