Whether the doctrine of Ex parte Young allows a federal court to exercise jurisdiction over a claim seeking return of illegally seized property

QUESTIONS PRESENTED Respondent, a Louisiana state agent, procured the post-legal-process seizures of petitioner and his property (seaman’s wages and tax refunds) through knowing use of deliberately falsified state records and intentionally perjured affidavits of state agents and others. After spending two years in state custody, petitioner’s criminal contempt conviction was invalidated. The state court found neither petitioner nor his property were subject to seizure in the first instance. Despite being statutorily compulsory, respondent refuses to take any action to return petitioner’s unlawfully seized federally protected property. The questions presented: (1) Whether the doctrine of Ex parte Young allows a federal court to exercise jurisdiction over a claim seeking return of illegally seized property that the State does not have possession of or a possessory interest in (as the Ninth Circuit and this Court have held), or whether under this Court’s holding in Edelman v. Jordan, the Eleventh Amendment bars a federal , court exercising jurisdiction over such a claim simply because the illegally seized property happens to be money (as the Fifth Circuit held below). (2) Whether the Fourth Amendment applies to people and property alike; and if so, whether the deferred-accrual rule applicable to §1983 claims for unlawful post-legal-process seizures of persons is equally applicable to §1983 claims for unlawful post-legal-process seizures of property (as the Ninth Circuit, and a panel of the Fifth Circuit have held), or whether the rat i“ ii limitations period accrues when the property is initially unlawfully seized (as held by the Eighth Circuit, and Fifth Circuit below). (3) Whether the statute of limitations for §1983 claims for a state official’s intentional and arbitrary discrimination in application of state and federal laws begins to run when the state official first violates the Equal Protection Clause (as the Fifth Circuit held below), or whether each day the state official persists in her unconstitutional conduct constitutes a separate violation with its on limitation period (as the Sixth, Seventh, Ninth, and Eleventh Circuits, following this Court’s guidance, held). ; 1 1 i ' } y iii