Whether sovereign immunity bars a lawsuit against a municipal corporation that is defined to include a legally-distinct state entity, such that the relief sought would operate against the state entity

QUESTIONS PRESENTED I Sovereign immunity bars a lawsuit to the extent the relief sought would operate against the State, even if the State is not a formally-named defendant. See Lewis v. Clarke, 187 S. Ct. 1285, 1290 (2017); see also Republic of the Philippines v. Pimentel, 553 U.S. 851, 863-873 (2008). Municipal corporations lack sovereign immunity. Monell v. Dept. of Soc. Serv. of the City of New York, 436 U.S. 658 (1978). If a complaint formally names a “municipality” as the only defendant, yet defines the “municipality” to include not just the municipal corporation, but also a legally-distinct state entity, such that the relief sought would operate against the state entity, does sovereign immunity bar the lawsuit? II Municipal corporations can only be liable for constitutional deprivations resulting from an unlawful policy or custom in an area where state law gives them authority to act. See McMillian v. Monroe County, Ala., 520 U.S. 781 (1997). If resolution of the first question demonstrates that the state entity is vested with the sole authority to take the actions leading to the alleged constitutional deprivations, does this mean that the claims against the “municipality” defined as a municipal corporation necessarily fail as a matter of law?