A rule comprehensively barring retrospective relief but permitting prospective relief is problematic in at least two ways. Gradually and without explanation, this exception was extended in dicta to encompass all retrospective relief. This article argues that the exception to Ex parte Young recognized in the Edelman case originally extended only to retrospective monetary relief.
In different ways, these decisions invite a reconsideration of the prospective-retrospective distinction. Greene, the Supreme Court has denied relief on Eleventh Amendment grounds in suits seeking nonmonetary relief that appeared to be prospective in nature. Coeur d'Alene Tribe of Idaho and Breard v. In two recent Supreme Court cases, Idaho v. Until recently, the principal effect of the Edelman line of cases has been to bar suits seeking damages and similar monetary relief from the state.
Commentators and the lower courts have long had difficulty understanding and applying the distinction. Jordan has been read to establish a distinction between suits seeking prospective relief from a state official's violation of federal law (which are not barred by the Eleventh Amendment under Ex parte Young) and suits seeking retrospective relief from the state (which are barred by the Eleventh Amendment, even if the officer is the defendant). The Supreme Court's decision in Edelman v.
0 kommentar(er)
