Constitutional Law - Seventh Circuit Applies Ex Parte Young Doctrine to Allow State Agency's Action Against State Officials - Indiana Protection and Advocacy Services V. Indiana Family and Social Services Administration‪.‬

Article VI of the Constitution establishes the supremacy of federal law over the states, while the Eleventh Amendment grants the states immunity from suit without their consent. (1) The incompatibility of these provisions becomes apparent, however, when a defendant state asserts its immunity in response to an attempt to enforce a valid federal law in federal court. (2) This constitutional contradiction recently divided two circuit courts ruling on suits brought under the same state-managed federal program: the Fourth Circuit held the Eleventh Amendment barred a state agency from enforcing the program's requirements against state officials in federal court, while the Seventh Circuit held the amendment posed no bar. (3) This Case Comment analyzes the Seventh Circuit's decision in Indiana Protection & Advocacy Services v. Indiana Family & Social Services Administration (4) and concludes that the court was correct in holding an independent state agency's suit against named state officials can be heard in federal court under the Supreme Court's Eleventh Amendment exception, the doctrine of Ex parte Young. (5) In 1986, Congress enacted the Protection and Advocacy for Individuals with Mental Illness Act (PAIMI Act) and provided each state with funds to establish an independent protection and advocacy system to safeguard the rights of the mentally ill. (6) The PAIMI Act requires that these systems receive access to all records of the individuals for whom they advocate and authorizes these systems to pursue legal remedies in federal court when necessary. (7) Indiana designated an independent state agency, Indiana Protection and Advocacy Services (IPAS), as its protection and advocacy system under the PAIMI Act. (8)