Case 1:20-cv-03325-AT Document 43 Filed 05/05/20 Page 12 of 30 sued, or (2) Congress has enacted legislation abrogating the state’s Eleventh Amendment immunity. See, e.g., Seminole Tribe of Florida v. Florida, 517 U.S. 44, 54–55 (1996). This immunity extends to “arms of the state, such as state agencies.” Walker v. City of Waterbury, 253 F. App’x 58, 60 (2d Cir. 2007) (internal quotation marks and citations omitted). Under the rule first established by the Supreme Court in Ex Parte Young, 209 U.S. 123 (1908), that bar does not apply to “suits against state officers acting in their official capacities that seek prospective injunctive relief to prevent a continuing violation of federal law.” Kelly v. New York Civil Serv. Comm’n, 632 F. App’x 17, 18 (2d Cir. 2016). Ex Parte Young does not allow a federal court, however, “to issue an injunction for a violation of state law.” Id. (citing Pennhurst State Sch. & Hosp. v. Halderman, 465 U.S. 89, 106 (1984)). Plaintiffs and Plaintiff-Intervenors bring claims against the BOE itself and BOE Officials in both their official and individual capacities. See generally Compl.; Intervenor Compl. Because New York has not consented to be sued, and because Congress has not enacted legislation abrogating New York’s Eleventh Amendment immunity with regard to Plaintiffs’ and Plaintiff-Intervenors’ causes of action, the claims against the BOE as a state agency are barred by sovereign immunity. Moreover, the Ex Parte Young doctrine does not permit a federal court to issue an injunction for a violation of state law. See Kelly, 632 F. App’x at 18. Accordingly, for the purposes of resolving the request for a preliminary injunction, the Court addresses only prospective injunctive relief against the BOE Officials in their official capacity brought under the U.S. Constitution. 12