This suit is necessary for the claimed vindication of claimed federal rights. The plaintiffs have alleged ongoing violations of federal law by Attorney General Barnett and Secretary of State Hazeltine. The substance of the complaint is that Amendment E is unconstitutional and, in enforcing the unconstitutional provision, the defendants are violating plaintiffs’ rights. Specifically, the plaintiffs allege violations of the Commerce Clause, the Privileges and Immunities Clause, the Fourteenth Amendment, 42 U.S.C. § 1983, and the ADA. All allegations involve federal law and claimed violations of federal law by state officials. This case falls within the doctrine promulgated in Ex parte Young. See Board of Trustees of Arkansas A & M College v. Davis, 396 F.2d 730, 733 (8th Cir.1968) (<HOLDING>). Thus, the motion to dismiss the individually
holding that plaintiffs complaint alleging deprivation of constitutional rights guaranteed under the first and fourteenth amendments was sufficient to invoke the ex parte young exception holding that a state defendant has a sixth amendment right guaranteed by the fourteenth amendments due process clause to compulsory process for obtaining witnesses in his favor holding that fifth sixth and fourteenth amendments entitle criminal defendant to ex parte hearing on request for expert assistance holding despite collective allegations in complaint the complaint was not deficient under rule 8a because it stated with sufficient particularity facts establishing a causal connection between the defendants actions and the constitutional deprivation holding the freedom of speech assembly and petition guaranteed by the first and fourteenth amendments gives petitioner the right to hire attorneys on a salary basis to assist its members in the assertion of their legal rights