F.3d 929, 935 (10th Cir.2000). In this case, Plaintiffs argue that the Ex parte Young exception applies. See Plaintiffs’ Response to Motion to Dismiss, filed May 19, 2000 (Doc. 8). Under Ex parte Young, the Eleventh Amendment does not bar a suit by a citizen against a state when the state is not the substantial party in interest. See Pennhurst State School & Hosp. v. Halderman, 465 U.S. 89, 101, 104 S.Ct. 900, 79 L.Ed.2d 67 (1984). A suit brought against state officials is in essence a suit against the state itself when the plaintiff seeks damages for past harm, which will inevitably be paid out of state funds. See Edelman, 415 U.S. at 666-67, 94 S.Ct. 1347. On the other hand, a state is not the substantial party in interest where suit is brought seeking an in 39 L.Ed.2d 662 (1974) (<HOLDING>). By framing the relief sought as an
holding that where class of aid recipients sued state officials for violation of federal law governing aid program ex parte young applied to allow injunctive relief requiring future compliance with laws governing program but did not allow an award of retroactive benefits holding that ex parte young permitted injunctive relief in equal protection challenge to states distribution of public school land funds because the expenditure of state funds that might accompany the injunction did not amount to an award for monetary liability holding that minnesota law prohibiting ex parte interviews was not integral to its privilege law but was merely procedural rule and therefore not controlling in diversity action and the federal rules allow ex parte interviews as method of informal discovery holding that ex parte young exception to states sovereign immunity applies only where violation of federal law is ongoing not where federal law was violated only in the past holding that ex parte young permits jurisdiction over officials who have authority to control the assessments of railroad taxes that are in violation of federal law