Gillian Filyaw v. Steve Corsi, in His Official Capacity as Chief Executive Officer of the Nebraska Department of Health and Human Services, et al.

Under Ex parte Young, sovereign immunity poses no barrier to suits against state officials when a plaintiff “alleges an ongoing violation of federal law and seeks relief properly characterized as prospective.” Verizon Md., Inc. v. Pub. Serv. Comm’n of Md., 535 U.S. 635, 645 (2002) (citation omitted). The circuits have split on the recurring question whether a suit to restore property unlawfully withheld by the state seeks prospective relief to redress an ongoing violation of the law, or whether such a suit seeks retrospective relief to remedy a past violation. Over a dissent by Chief Judge Colloton, a divided Eighth Circuit panel below embraced the minority view that a suit seeking to restore unlawfully withheld property is barred by sovereign immunity, bringing the split in the circuit courts to six to two. The question presented is: When a suit alleges that state officials are depriving a plaintiff of property in violation of due process, does the suit allege an ongoing violation of the law for which prospective relief is available under Ex parte Young? (i)