Whether a plaintiff who suffers ongoing harm caused by a state official's prior unlawful conduct is subject to an 'ongoing violation' of federal law, and so able to seek an injunction under Ex parte Young, or whether Ex parte Young's 'ongoing violation' requirement demands that a plaintiff show that the state official's continuing actions are independently unlawful

Under this Court’s precedents, sovereign immunity does not bar suit against a state official when a plaintiff “alleges an ongoing violation of federal law and seeks relief properly characterized as prospective.” Va. Off. for Prot. & Advocacy v. Stewart , 563 U.S. 247, 255 (2011) (citation omitted); see Ex parte Young , 209 U.S. 123 (1908). In the decision below, a Second Circuit panel agreed that petitioner had plausibly alleged a violation of federal law— disability discrimination in connection with the administration of the New York bar exam. It also recognized that this violation continued to cause petitioner harm, and that the relief sought— expungement of petitioner’s bar exam records that resulted from discriminati on—was prospective. Yet the panel held that petitioner’s suit was barred by sovereign immunity because, in its view, petitioner failed to allege any “ongoing violation” of federal law. In the panel’s view, expungement was unavailable unless petitioner could establish that the maintenance of exam records independently violated federal law. The question presented is: Whether a plaintiff who suffers ongoing harm caused by a state official’s prior unlawful conduct is subject to an “ongoing violat ion” of federal law, and so able to seek an injunction under Ex parte Young —as multiple courts of appeals have held—or whether Ex parte Young ’s “ongoing violation” requirement demands that a plaintiff show that the state official’s continuing actions are independently unlawful, as the Second Circuit held below.