ÿWPCÈ; F\5[LÊf`+ò œÂïh0*ʬÏLu3{ÐòãŠýdXQ@M®™•‘åw©BÙp§, bûÓ«XÝytƒÌÆÃÕÞѹ¤l-%;ÍOÒÄÞdï_N¡ÐP‹ŽüŒãRÔ«ë»Rø·˜q'êtÊŸc¬')CJJŸ9^ª#”äOOƒ’7‹‡Š‰d.¤Uàà`-«,áÑ *Û÷&ÐB—‰’™". 9A’ur4јþn42Ÿº œì°°ÌnmÍ#‘KÒKU—/ó"$¡Ù]\¶QªO¡m_/8d ûß»›ÙÑÅ-üFü,Øí«/”÷Û …Þ¨ìhv½<@éôÆlH^ã? ̵’ߣH‘'N'“î;’?¸µ¨RÄq³¨¶Sâ¹be¾¡ ¤C/ „ã?åº[æo©±â¡>;ƒ?”Ë|’ž‘ßÈùõ˜¦P[^KB™Wçá_ÔàšÀ¿'˜_)wwñ=v1ó 'øª ]1–Sf;ö¤²ü6ØÔxH¢ÇeŠ—³ÀFþ®Y@ÎÿxF¢=žåòpš{Ä1 ãÝîžéãØ»mCŒÁÙ ŽFñчÇCt4@™GŸG7yòùk)”ۜ›+gêÞ`)j>>…#ÁF U> %E 0(K K K K ^ s w 4ƒ — ¦ 0D¨ bì 0Dô ô ô E8 m: U0Q Q b !‰ ‰ ‰ ‰ תªE3 Ætù ù ù ù m"m"ru"ìç$ç$ç$ç$ç$ç$ç$ç$‡Ó(Ó(Ó(Ó(Ó(Ó(Ó(Ó(êZ,Z,Z,Z,Z,Z,Z,Z,Z,Z,Z,Z,Z,Z,Z,Z,U:D/D/D/D/D/D/D/D/D/D/D/D/D/D/D/D/N~/~/~/~/~/~/~/~/~/æ€/€/"f1f1f1]ˆ3ˆ3ˆ3ˆ3ˆ3ˆ3ˆ3ˆ3ˆ3ˆ3ˆ3ˆ3ˆ3ˆ3ˆ3ˆ3ˆ3ˆ3ˆ3ˆ3 Bå6å6å6977777777 0;;˜HP LaserJet 4,ü,,,,,ü0<èÀ( 9Z+&Courier RegularX($¡¡–h&-s ‚[ó,‚ ‚ÐHŠ3|x)(3¯$©©Ý ƒ!ÝÝ  Ý- ù-(Ã$òòÚ  Ú*Ú  ÚóóÿU‹ÿÀÀÀ<@ˆÐ9Z+Courier - ù- Ô_ÔÝ ƒ„_ÿÝÔ€XCßXXXÔÓ  ÓòòÚ  Ú1Ú  Úóó€€Ý  ÝÔ‡XCßXXXCßÔThe€same€administrative€enforcement€mechanism€applies€to€theÐ ° Ðwhistleblower€provisions€in€several€other€environmental€statutes.€Ð xÈ ÐòòSeeóó€29€C.F.R.€ðð€24.1;€òòsee€alsoóó€15€U.S.C.€ðð2622€(Toxic€SubstancesÐ @ ÐControl€Act);€33€U.S.C.€ðð€1367€(Water€Pollution€Control€Act);€42Ð X ÐU.S.C.€ðð€300j„9€(Safe€Drinking€Water€Act);€42€U.S.C.€ðð€5851€(EnergyÐ Ð  ÐReorganization€Act);€42€U.S.C.€ðð7622€(Clean€Air€Act);€42€U.S.C.Ð ˜è Ððð9610€(Comprehensive€Environmental€Response,€Compensation,€andÐ ` ° ÐLiability€Act). ÍÔ_ÔÝ ƒ„_ÿÝÔ€XCßXXXÔÓ  ÓòòÚ  Ú4Ú  Úóó€€Ý  ÝÔ‡XCßXXXCßÔThe€term€"Ô_ÔnonstatutoryÔ_Ô€review"€is€something€of€a€misnomer,€sinceÐ ° Ðòòallóó€actions€in€federal€court€are€based€on€a€statute.€€òòSeeóó€ClarkÐ xÈ ÐÔ_ÔByseÔ_Ô€&€Joseph€V.€Ô_ÔFioccaÔ_Ô,€òòSection€1361€of€the€Mandamus€and€Venue€ActÐ @ Ðof€1962€and€"Ô_ÔNonstatutoryÔ_Ô"€Judicial€Review€of€FederalÐ X ÐAdministrative€Actionóó,€81€Ô_ÔHarvÔ_Ô.€L.€Rev.€308,€321€n.51€(1967). ;Ô_ÔÝ ƒ„_ÿÝÔ€XCßXXXÔÓ  ÓòòÚ  Ú5Ú  Úóó€€Ý  ÝÔ‡XCßXXXCßÔThe€state€raises€its€own€threshold€challenge€to€ourÐ ° Ðjurisdiction,€which€we€address€only€briefly.€€Rhode€Island€contendsÐ xÈ Ðthat€this€appeal€was€mooted€by€our€dismissal€of€the€individualÐ @ Ðappellants'€earlier€appeal€from€the€order€granting€the€preliminaryÐ X Ðinjunction.€€However,€following€our€dismissal,€the€individualÐ Ð  Ðappellants€moved€for€rehearing€and€for€consolidation€with€theÐ ˜è ÐUnited€States's€appeal.€€We€treated€this€as€the€functionalÐ ` ° Ðequivalent€of€a€notice€of€appeal€and€reinstated€the€individuals'Ð ( x Ðappeal.€€Although€Rhode€Island€now€objects€strenuously€to€ourÐ ð @ Ðdecision,€it€offers€no€developed€argument€challenging€our€authorityÐ ¸   Ðto€reinstate€the€appeal.€€The€reinstatement€of€the€individuals'Ð € Ð  Ðappeal€therefore€stands. ) Ô_ÔÝ ƒ„_ÿÝÔ€XCßXXXÔÓ  ÓòòÚ  Ú6Ú  Úóó€€Ý  ÝÔ‡XCßXXXCßÔWe€have€previously€held€that€Rhode€Island€General€Laws€ðð€9„31„1Ð ° Ðeffects€a€broad€waiver€of€Rhode€Island's€sovereign€immunity€forÐ xÈ Ðcertain€claims€in€federal€court.€€òòDella€Grottaóó€v.€òòRhode€Islandóó,€781Ð @ ÐF.2d€343,€347€(1st€Cir.€1986);€òòsee€alsoóó€òòLairdóó,€460€A.2d€at€429„30Ð X Ð(holding€that€ðð€9„31„1€waives€the€state's€Eleventh€AmendmentÐ Ð  Ðimmunity€with€regard€to€"actions€in€tort").€€The€individualÐ ˜è Ðappellants€argued€before€the€district€court€that€ðð€9„31„1€alsoÐ ` ° Ðwaived€any€immunity€the€state€might€have€in€the€administrativeÐ ( x Ðproceedings.€€The€district€court€rejected€this€statutory€waiverÐ ð @ Ðargument,€reasoning€that€the€whistleblower€proceedings€before€theÐ ¸   ÐALJ€did€not€qualify€as€an€"action[]€in€tort"€within€the€meaning€ofÐ € Ð  Ðthe€waiver€statute.€€òòRhode€Islandóó,€115€F.€Supp.€2d€at€276„78.€Ð H ˜  ÐAlthough€this€statutory€waiver€argument€strikes€us€as€at€least€moreÐ `  Ðpromising€than€the€other€waiver€arguments€presented€on€appeal,€theÐ Ø(  Ðindividual€appellants'€only€attempt€to€preserve€the€issue€consistsÐ  ð  Ðof€a€single€footnote€in€their€appellate€brief€purporting€toÐ h¸  Ð"incorporate€their€statutory€waiver€argument€by€reference"€to€aÐ 0€  Ðbrief€filed€before€the€court€below.€€We€deem€the€argument€to€haveÐ øH  Ðbeen€forfeited.€€òòGildayóó€v.€òòCallahanóó,€59€F.3d€257,€273€n.23€(1stÐ À ÐCir.€1995).€€Filing€a€brief€that€merely€adopts€by€reference€aÐ ˆØ Ðmemorandum€previously€filed€in€the€district€court€does€not€complyÐ P  Ðwith€the€Federal€Rules€of€Appellate€Procedure.€€òòSeeóó€Fed.€R.€App.€P.Ð h Ð28(a)(6)€(providing€that€argument€must€contain€appellant'sÐ à0 Ðcontentions€and€reasons€therefor,€with€citations€to€authorities).€Ð ¨ø ÐMoreover,€it€is€a€practice€"that€has€been€consistently€and€roundlyÐ pÀ Ðcondemned€by€the€Courts€of€Appeals,"€òòCray€Communications,€Inc.óó€v.Ð 8ˆ ÐòòNovatel€Computer€Sys.,€Inc.óó,€33€F.3d€390,€396€n.6€(4th€Cir.€1994),Ð P Ðand€litigants€in€this€circuit€would€be€well€advised€to€avoid€it€inÐ È Ðthe€future. jÔ_ÔÝ ƒ„_ÿÝÔ€XCßXXXÔÓ  ÓòòÚ  Ú3Ú  Úóó€€Ý  ÝÔ‡XCßXXXCßÔOSHA€subsequently€found€that€Taylor's€allegations€had€merit,€andÐ ° Ðthe€Ô_ÔDEMÔ_Ô€requested€a€hearing€which,€due€to€the€injunction,€has€notÐ xÈ Ðtaken€place.  hÔ_ÔÝ ƒ„_ÿÝÔ€XCßXXXÔÓ  ÓòòÚ  Ú11Ú  Úóó€€Ý  ÝÔ‡XCßXXXCßÔWe€note,€however,€that€Rhode€Island€asserts€that€the€complaintsÐ ° Ðdid€not€name€any€individuals€in€their€official€capacity€„„€anÐ xÈ Ðassertion€that€is€not€challenged€by€the€United€States.€€Moreover,Ð @ Ðthere€is€no€dispute€that€the€individual€appellants€sought€monetaryÐ X Ðrelief€in€addition€to€their€prayers€for€reinstatement.€€òòSeeóó€òòRhodeÐ Ð  ÐIslandóó,€115€F.€Supp.€2d€at€271. âÝ ƒ„_$ÝÔ€XCßXXXÔÓ  ÓòòÚ  Ú8Ú  Úóó€€Ý  ÝÔ_ÔÔ‡XCßXXXCßÔSection€5€of€the€Fourteenth€Amendment€grants€Congress€the€powerÐ ° Ðto€enforce€the€substantive€guarantees€contained€in€ðð€1€of€theÐ xÈ ÐFourteenth€Amendment€by€enacting€"appropriate€legislation."€Ð @ ÐSection€1€of€the€Fourteenth€Amendment€provides,€in€relevant€part:Ð X ÐÌà8  àNo€state€shall€make€or€enforce€any€law€which€shallÐ ˜è Ðabridge€the€privileges€or€immunities€of€citizens€of€theÐ ` ° ÐUnited€States;€nor€shall€any€State€deprive€any€person€ofÐ ( x Ðlife,€liberty,€or€property,€without€due€process€of€law;Ð ð @ Ðnor€deny€to€any€person€within€its€jurisdiction€the€equalÐ ¸   Ðprotection€of€the€laws.Ѐ Ð Ð Ð  ÐÌU.S.€Const.€amend.€XIV,€ðð€1.Ô#†XCßXXXCßt#Ô }Ý ƒ„_$ÝÔ€XCßXXXÔÓ  ÓòòÚ  Ú9Ú  Úóó€€Ý  ÝÔ_ÔÔ‡XCßXXXCßÔÔ#†XCßXXXCßt#ÔÔ‡XCßXXXCßÔBecause€we€conclude€that€Congress€did€not€unequivocally€expressÐ ° Ðan€intention€to€subject€the€states€to€suits€by€private€individuals,Ð xÈ Ðwe€need€not€address€a€remaining€inquiry€under€Section€5€of€theÐ @  ÐFourteenth€Amendment,€namely,€whether€the€SWDA's€whistleblowerÐ ° Ðprovision€creates€the€necessary€"congruence€and€proportionalityÐ xÈ Ðbetween€the€injury€to€be€prevented€or€remedied€and€the€meansÐ @ Ðadopted€to€that€end."€€òòCity€of€Ô_ÔBoerneÔ_Ôóó€v.€òòFloresóó,€521€U.S.€507,€520Ð X Ð(1997).Ô#†XCßXXXC߶#Ô àÔ_ÔÝ ƒ„_ÿÝÔ€XCßXXXÔÓ  ÓòòÚ  Ú10Ú  Úóó€€Ý  ÝÔ‡XCßXXXCßÔWe€express€no€view€as€to€whether€an€employee€filing€a€complaintÐ ° Ðunder€42€U.S.C.€ðð€6971€may€also€seek€òòmonetaryóó€relief€against€aÐ xÈ Ðstate€official€named€in€his€òòindividualóó€capacity.€€òòCf.óó€òòÔ_ÔHaferÔ_Ôóó€v.Ð @ ÐòòMeloóó,€502€U.S.€21,€30„31€(1991)€(holding€that€a€state€officer€suedÐ X Ðin€his€individual€capacity€may€be€held€personally€liable€forÐ Ð  Ðdamages€under€42€U.S.C.€ðð€1983€based€upon€actions€taken€in€hisÐ ˜è Ðofficial€capacity).+Çr Z‹"Book Antiqua  ÜÝ ƒ„_$ÝÔ€XCßXXXÔÓ  ÓòòÚ  Ú13Ú  Úóó€€Ý  ÝÔ_ÔÔ‡XCßXXXCßÔWe€also€note,€in€agreement€with€the€district€court,€that€OSHAÐ ° Ðis€not€enjoined€from€receiving€complaints,€conducting€its€ownÐ xÈ Ðinvestigations€on€such€complaints,€and€making€determinations€as€toÐ @ Ðliability€under€29€C.F.R.€ðð24.4(d)(1).Ô#†XCßXXXCßu#Ô Ô_ÔÝ ƒ„_ÿÝÔ€XCßXXXÔÓ  ÓòòÚ  Ú2Ú  Úóó€€Ý  ÝÔ‡XCßXXXCßÔThe€state€asserted€in€the€administrative€proceedings€thatÐ ° Ðsovereign€immunity€barred€the€individuals'€claims,€but€itsÐ xÈ Ðentreaties€were€rejected€by€the€Ô_ÔALJÔ_Ô.€€The€regulations€governing€theÐ @ Ðproceedings€provide€no€formal€mechanism€for€interlocutory€review€ofÐ X Ðimmunity€determinations. SÔ_ÔÝ ƒ„_ÿÝÔ€XCßXXXÔÓ  ÓòòÚ  Ú7Ú  Úóó€€Ý  ÝÔ‡XCßXXXCßÔòòSeeóó€òòNewfield€House,€Inc.óó€v.€òòMass.€Dep't€of€Pub.€Welfareóó,€651Ð ° ÐF.2d€32,€36€n.3€(1st€Cir.€1981)€(holding€that€a€state€entity€waivedÐ xÈ Ðits€Eleventh€Amendment€immunity€by€having€the€case€removed€toÐ @ Ðfederal€court);€òòsee€alsoóó€òòArecibo€Cmty.€Health€Careóó,€òòóó270€F.3d€at€27Ð X Ð(holding€that€Puerto€Rico€waived€its€sovereign€immunity€by€filingÐ Ð  Ða€claim€with€the€bankruptcy€court);€òòPaul€N.€Howardóó,€744€F.2d€at€886Ð ˜è Ð(holding€that€agency€of€the€Commonwealth€of€Puerto€Rico€waived€itsÐ ` ° Ðimmunity€by€filing€a€counterclaim€and€a€third-party€complaint). d /Ô_ÔÝ ƒ„_ÿÝÔ€XCßXXXÔÓ  ÓòòÚ  Ú12Ú  Úóó€€Ý  ÝÔ‡XCßXXXCßÔThe€United€States€originally€argued€that€the€federal€exerciseÐ ° Ðof€political€responsibility€necessary€to€avoid€sovereign€immunityÐ xÈ Ðcould€be€found€in€the€Secretary's€ultimate€decision€whether€to€seekÐ @ Ðenforcement€of€her€order€in€court.€€In€the€wake€of€òòÔ_ÔSCSPAÔ_Ôóó,€it€isÐ X Ðclear€that€such€an€argument€is€a€non„starter.€€As€the€òòÔ_ÔSCSPAÔ_Ôóó€CourtÐ Ð  Ðstated,€"The€Attorney€General's€decision€to€bring€an€enforcementÐ ˜è Ðaction€against€a€State€after€the€conclusion€of€the€[agency's]Ð ` ° Ðproceedings€.€.€.€does€not€retroactively€convert€an€[agency]Ð ( x Ðadjudication€initiated€and€pursued€by€a€private€party€into€oneÐ ð @ Ðinitiated€and€pursued€by€the€Federal€Government."€€122€S.€Ct.€atÐ ¸   Ð1876.(J2_$¤¤Ý ƒ!ÝÝ  ÝÔ€XIXXXÔÓ  ÓòòÚ  Ú0Ú  Úóó€€Ý ƒ!ÝÝ  ÝÔ_ÔÔ€°¥q°XXÔÑ€ÑÑ8€CßXXdÈdÈ8ÑÑ  ÑÙ*ƒ!Ùò òÔ‡G°†°°°¥qÔà@ÎÎìàUnited€States€Court€of€AppealsˆÐ ° ÐÔ€G„÷ð„°G°†Ôà@²² ìàFor€the€First€CircuitˆÐ ’â ÐÔ#†„ëf„„G„÷ð¿#Ôó óÔ€XCßX„„ëfÔßA€y) °°` dE<ý` AßÐ þN ÐÌÔ‡XCßXXXCßÔNos.€00„2326Ð Õ% Ѐ€€€€01„1543Ð  í ÐÌà@¼¼ìàRHODE€ISLAND€DEPARTMENT€OF€ENVIRONMENTAL€MANAGEMENT,ˆÐ - } Ðà@ÄÄìàSTATE€OF€RHODE€ISLAND,ˆÐ õ E Ðà@ÄÄìàPlaintiffs,€Appellees,ˆÐ ½   ÐÌà@tt)ìàv.ˆÐ M  ÐÌà@   ìàUNITED€STATES€OF€AMERICA;€UNITED€STATES€DEPARTMENT€OF€LABOR;€à@@(( ìàˆÐ Ý-  ÐELAINE€Ô_ÔCHAOÔ_Ô,€SECRETARY€OF€LABOR;€OCCUPATIONAL€SAFETY€AND€HEALTHÐ ¥õ  Ðà@°° ìàADMINISTRATION;€CHARLES€N.€Ô_ÔJEFFRESSÔ_Ô,€ASSISTANT€SECRETARY€OF€LABORˆÐ m½  Ðà@dd ìàFOR€OCCUPATIONAL€SAFETY€AND€HEALTH;€RUTH€E.€Ô_ÔMCCULLYÔ_Ô,€REGIONAL€à@@@ @ ìàˆÐ 5…  Ðà@@ @ ìàADMINISTRATOR€REGION€1,€OCCUPATIONAL€ˆÐ ýM Ðà@0 0 ìàSAFETY€AND€HEALTH€ADMINISTRATION,ˆÐ Å Ðà@ˆˆìàDefendants,€Appellants,ˆÐ Ý ÐÌà@èèìàBEVERLY€Ô_ÔMIGLIOREÔ_Ô;€BARBARA€Ô_ÔRADDATZÔ_Ô;€JOAN€TAYLOR,ˆÐ m Ðà@ˆˆìàDefendants,€Appellants.ˆÐ å5 ÐÌßA€y) °°` d³E<t` AßÐ uÅ ÐÌà@` ` ìàAPPEALS€FROM€THE€UNITED€STATES€DISTRICT€COURTˆÐ Lœ Ðà@l l ìàFOR€THE€DISTRICT€OF€RHODE€ISLANDˆÐ d Ðà@œ œ ìà[Hon.€Ernest€C.€Torres,€òòU.S.€District€Judgeóó]ˆÐ Ü, ÐÌßA€y) °°` d³E<k` AßÐ l¼ ÐÌà@„„'ìàBeforeˆÐ C“  Ðà@<< ìàÔ_ÔBoudinÔ_Ô,€òòChief€Judgeóó,ˆÐ  [! Ðà@ ìàCoffin,€òòSenior€Circuit€Judgeóó,ˆÐ Ó#" Ðà@ ìàand€Torruella,€òòCircuit€Judgeóó.ˆÐ ›ë# ÐÌßA€y) °°` dE<*!` AßÐ +!{% ÐÌÓ  Óà  àòòMark€B.€Sternóó,€with€whom€òòStuart€E.€Ô_ÔSchifferÔ_Ôóó,€Acting€AssistantÐ "R' ÐAttorney€General,€òòMargaret€E.€Ô_ÔCurranÔ_Ôóó,€United€States€Attorney,€andÐ Ê"( ÐòòAlisa€B.€Kleinóó,€were€on€brief€for€the€United€States€appellants.Ð ’#â) Ðà  àòòDaniel€P.€Meyeróó,€with€whom€òòJoel€D.€Landry,€Sr.óó,€were€on€briefÐ Z$ª* Ðfor€appellants€Ô_ÔMiglioreÔ_Ô,€Ô_ÔRaddatzÔ_Ô€and€Taylor.Ð "%r + Ðà  àòòJonathan€M.€Ô_ÔGutoffÔ_Ôóó,€was€on€brief€as€amicus€curiae,€AmericanÐ ê%:!, ÐCivil€Liberties€Union,€Rhode€Island€Affiliate.Ð ²&"- Ðà  àòòJames€R.€Leeóó,€Assistant€Attorney€General,€with€whom€òòSheldonÐ z'Ê". ÐÔ_ÔWhitehouseÔ_Ôóó,€Attorney€General,€and€òòDeborah€A.€Georgeóó,€Senior€LegalÐ B(’#/ ÐCounsel,€were€on€brief€for€appellees.Ð  )Z$0 ÐÌßA€y) °°` dàE<™*` AßÐ š*ê%2 ÐÌà@hh#ìàAugust€30,€2002ˆÐ q+Á&4 ÐÌßA€y) °°` d E<-` AßÐ  -Q(6 ÐÑ  ÑÓÓÙ*!ÙÑ8€CßXXdÈXXdÈ8ÑÑ€ÑÓ*°,X°` ¨ ƒX°œX*Óà ` àò òTORRUELLA,€òòCircuit€Judgeóó.ó ó€€The€State€of€Rhode€IslandÐ ° Ðbrought€suit€in€the€district€court€seeking€to€enjoin€certainÐ à Ðfederal€administrative€proceedings€on€the€ground€that€theÐ  p Ðproceedings€infringed€upon€the€state's€constitutionally€protectedÐ °  Ðsovereign€interests.€€Finding€the€state's€arguments€convincing,€theÐ @  Ðdistrict€court€enjoined€the€United€States€Department€of€Labor€andÐ Ð   Ðthree€employees€of€a€Rhode€Island€state€agency€from€proceeding€inÐ `°  Ðan€administrative€adjudication€of€the€employees'€claims€that€theÐ ð@  Ðstate€had€retaliated€against€them€in€violation€of€federal€law.€€TheÐ €Ð  ÐUnited€States€and€individual€employees€now€appeal€the€orderÐ ` Ðentering€the€injunction.Ð  ð Ðà ` àAfter€fully€considering€the€parties'€contentions,€whichÐ 0€ Ðwere€ably€briefed€and€very€well€argued,€we€affirm€the€judgment€ofÐ À Ðthe€district€court,€with€only€slight€modification€to€its€order.Ð P  Ðà@tt)ìàò òI.ó óˆÐ à0 Ðò òA.€€Statutory€Backgroundó óÐ À Ðà ` àThe€Solid€Waste€Disposal€Act€("Ô_ÔSWDAÔ_Ô"€or€"Act"),€23€U.S.C.Ð  ð  Ððððð€6901-6992k,€is€a€comprehensive€environmental€enactment€designedÐ 0 €" Ðto€promote€the€reduction€of€hazardous€waste€and€the€treatment,Ð À!$ Ðstorage,€or€disposal€of€such€waste€so€as€to€minimize€threats€toÐ P# & Ðhuman€health€and€the€environment.€€òòId.óó€ðð€6902(b).Ð à$0 ( Ðà ` àThe€Act€contains€a€Ô_ÔwhistleblowerÔ_Ô€provision€that€prohibitsÐ p&À!* Ðan€employer€from€firing€or€otherwise€discriminating€against€anÐ (P#, Ðemployee€who€initiates€or€testifies€in€a€proceeding€broughtÐ )à$. Ðpursuant€to€the€Act.€€òòId.óó€ðð€6971(a).€€The€Act€establishes€anÐ  +p&0 ÐÔ_Ôadministrative€scheme€by€which€an€employee€who€believes€that€he€wasÐ ° Ðthe€victim€of€a€retaliatory€adverse€employment€action€may€seekÐ @ Ðreview€of€the€employer's€decision€by€the€Secretary€of€Labor.׃×Ý ƒÃÝòòÚ  Ú1Ú  ÚóóÝ  Ý×  ×€€òòSeeóóÐ Ð  Ð29€C.F.R.€pt.€24.Ð ` ° Ðà ` àò ò1.€€Initial€investigationó óÐ ð @ Ðà ` àUnder€this€administrative€scheme,€an€employee€may,€withinÐ Ð   Ðthirty€days€of€the€alleged€retaliation,€apply€to€the€Secretary€ofÐ `°  ÐLabor€for€a€review€of€the€firing€or€alleged€discrimination.€€42Ð ð@  ÐU.S.C.€ðð6971(b).€€The€Act€directs€the€Secretary€of€LaborÐ €Ð  Ð("Secretary"),€upon€receiving€such€an€application,€to€cause€anÐ ` Ðinvestigation€to€be€made€as€the€Secretary€deems€appropriate.€€òòId.óó€Ð  ð ÐBy€regulation,€an€initial€investigation€is€conducted€by€the€OfficeÐ 0€ Ðof€the€Assistant€Secretary€of€the€Occupational€Safety€and€HealthÐ À ÐAdministration€("OSHA").€€29€C.F.R.€ðð24.4(b).€€The€regulationsÐ P  Ðauthorize€OSHA,€in€the€course€of€this€investigation,€to€enter€andÐ à0 Ðinspect€places€and€records,€question€persons€who€are€beingÐ pÀ Ðproceeded€against€and€other€employees€of€the€charged€employer,€andÐ P  Ðrequire€the€production€of€any€documentary€or€other€evidence€deemedÐ à" Ðnecessary€to€determine€whether€a€violation€of€the€law€has€beenÐ  !p$ Ðâ âcommitted.€€òòId.óó€€Within€thirty€days€of€receipt€of€the€employee'sÐ °"& Ðapplication,€OSHA€must€complete€the€investigation€and€determineÐ ° Ðwhether€a€violation€has€occurred.€€òòId.óó€ðð24.4(d)(1).Ð @ Ðâ âà ` àò ò2.€€Opportunity€for€an€administrative€hearingó óÐ Ð  Ðà ` àThe€statute€requires€the€Secretary€to€provide,€on€requestÐ °  Ðof€either€party,€an€opportunity€for€a€hearing€to€enable€the€partiesÐ @  Ðto€present€information€relating€to€the€alleged€violation.€€42Ð Ð   ÐU.S.C.€ðð6971(b).€€Upon€such€a€request,€OSHA's€initialÐ `°  Ðdetermination€becomes€inoperative,€29€C.F.R.€ðð24.4(d)(2),€and€theÐ ð@  Ðmatter€is€assigned€to€an€administrative€law€judge€("ALJ")€withinÐ €Ð  Ðthe€Department€of€Labor,€òòid.óó€ðð€24.6(a).€€A€hearing€before€the€ALJÐ ` Ðis€conducted€in€accordance€with€the€formal€hearing€provisions€ofÐ  ð Ðthe€Administrative€Procedure€Act€("APA"),€set€forth€at€5€U.S.C.Ð 0€ Ððð554.€€42€U.S.C.€ðð6971(b).€€The€employer€and€employee€areÐ À Ðentitled€to€be€represented€by€counsel€at€the€hearing,€presentÐ P  Ðevidence€on€their€behalf,€and,€upon€request,€present€oral€argumentÐ à0 Ðand€file€a€prehearing€brief€or€other€written€statement€of€fact€orÐ pÀ Ðlaw.€€29€C.F.R.€ðððð24.6(d),€(e)(1)„(3).€€At€her€discretion,€theÐ P  ÐSecretary€may€intervene€in€the€matter€as€a€party€or€amicus€curiaeÐ à" Ðat€any€time€during€the€proceedings.€€òòId.óó€ðð24.6(f)(1).Ð  !p$ Ðà ` àAt€the€end€of€the€hearing,€the€ALJ€issues€a€recommendedÐ °"& Ðdecision.€€òòId.óó€ðð€24.7(a).€€If€the€ALJ€finds€in€favor€of€theÐ @$( Ðcomplainant,€a€recommended€order€that€includes€a€recommendation€asÐ Ð% !* Ðto€appropriate€relief€is€issued.€€òòId.óó€ðð24.7(c)(1).Ð `'°", Ðà ` àThe€ALJ's€recommended€decision€becomes€final€unless€aÐ ð(@$. Ðpetition€for€review€is€filed€with€the€Administrative€Review€BoardÐ €*Ð%0 Ð("ARB"),€òòid.óó€ðð€24.7(d),€a€body€to€which€the€Secretary€has€Ð ,`'2 Ðdelegated€the€authority€to€issue€final€decisions,€òòid.óó€ðð€24.8(a).€Ð ° ÐThe€ARB€is€composed€of€three€members,€each€of€whom€is€appointed€byÐ @ Ðthe€Secretary€for€a€term€not€to€exceed€two€years.€€òòSeeóó€AuthorityÐ Ð  Ðand€Responsibilities€of€the€Administrative€Review€Board,€61€Fed.Ð ` ° ÐReg.€19,978,€19,789€(May€3,€1996).Ð ð @ Ðà ` àThe€ARB€reviews€the€decision€of€the€ALJ€to€determineÐ € Ð  Ðwhether€a€violation€of€the€law€occurred.€€29€C.F.R.€ðð€24.8(d)(1).€Ð `  ÐIf€the€ARB€determines€that€a€violation€did€occur,€it€shall€orderÐ  ð  Ðthe€party€charged€to€take€"appropriate€affirmative€action€to€abateÐ 0€  Ðthe€violation,"€including€reinstating€the€complainant€andÐ À Ðcompensating€the€complainant€for€back€pay€and€other€compensatoryÐ P  Ðdamages.€€òòId.óó€€The€ARB,€at€the€request€of€the€complainant,€shallÐ à0 Ðalso€award€attorney€fees€and€costs.€€òòId.óó€ðð€24.8(d)(2);€42€U.S.C.Ð pÀ Ððð6971(c).€€If€the€ARB€concludes€that€no€violation€occurred,€itÐ P Ðmust€issue€an€order€denying€the€complaint.€€29€C.F.R.€ðð€24.8(e).Ð à Ðà ` àò ò3.€€Enforcement€of€the€Secretary's€ordersó óÐ  p Ðà ` àUnlike€a€court,€the€Secretary€does€not€have€inherentÐ P  Ðauthority€to€issue€enforceable€orders,€and€the€SWDA€does€not€giveÐ à" Ðthe€Secretary€the€power€of€contempt,€mandamus,€or€the€like.€€Thus,Ð  !p$ Ðany€enforcement€of€the€Secretary's€orders€must€occur€in€court.€Ð °"& ÐSpecifically,òòóó€the€Act€directs€that€the€Secretary's€finalÐ @$( Ðdeterminations€under€the€whistleblower€provisions€are€subject€toÐ Ð% !* Ðreview€in€the€court€of€appeals€in€accordance€with€judicial€reviewÐ `'°", Ðprovisions€of€the€APA,€5€U.S.C.€ðððð€701„706.€€òòSeeóó€42€U.S.C.€ððððÐ ð(@$. Ðâ â6971(b),€6976(b);€òòsee€alsoóó€òòVarnadoreóó€v.€òòSec'y€of€Laboróó,€141€F.3dÐ €*Ð%0 Ð625,€630€(6th€Cir.€1999);€òòSimonóó€v.€òòSimmons€Foods,€Inc.óó,€49€F.3dÐ ° Ð386,€389€n.2€(8th€Cir.€1995).Ð @ Ðâ âò òB.€€Factual€Background€and€Proceedings€Belowó óÐ Ð  Ðà ` àò ò1.€€Administrative€proceedingsó óÐ °  Ðà ` àThe€State€of€Rhode€Island€and€the€Rhode€Island€DepartmentÐ  à Ðof€Environmental€Management€("DEM")€brought€this€action€to€enjoinÐ  p  Ðfour€separate€administrative€proceedings€brought€pursuant€to€theÐ °  Ðwhistleblower€provision€of€the€SWDA.׃b×Ý ƒÃÝòòÚ  Ú2Ú  ÚóóÝ  Ý×  ×€€The€complainants€in€theseÐ @  Ðproceedings€were€DEM€employees€Beverly€Migliore,€Barbara€Raddatz,Ð Ð  Ðand€Joan€Taylor€(the€"individual€appellants").€€They€each€allegeÐ `° Ðthat€the€state€agency€retaliated€against€them€for€reporting€whatÐ ð@ Ðthe€employees€believed€to€be€an€improper€implementation€of€theÐ €Ð ÐSWDA.€€òòSeeóó€òòRhode€Islandóó€v.€òòUnited€Statesóó,€115€F.€Supp.€2d€269,€270„Ð ` Ð71€(D.R.I.€2000).€€Migliore€also€filed€a€second€charge€based€on€herÐ  ð Ðallegation€that€DEM€had€retaliated€against€her€for€initiating€theÐ 0€ Ðfirst€proceeding.€€òòId.óó€at€271.€€The€relief€that€each€complainantÐ À Ðsought€included€monetary€and€injunctive€relief.€€òòId.óóÐ P   Ðà ` àThe€four€proceedings€were€at€different€stages€when€theÐ à0" Ðdistrict€court€enjoined€further€action.€€In€Migliore's€firstÐ p!À$ Ðproceeding,€an€ALJ€had€issued€a€recommended€decision€awarding€herÐ #P& Ð$843,000€in€monetary€relief,€and€the€DEM€filed€a€petition€with€theÐ $à( ÐARB€for€review€of€the€ALJ's€decision.€€òòId.óó€at€272.€€In€the€secondÐ  &p!* Ðproceeding€initiated€by€Migliore,€OSHA€had€issued€an€order€awardingÐ ° ÐMigliore€$10,000€in€monetary€relief,€and€the€DEM€requested€aÐ @ Ðhearing€before€an€ALJ.€€òòId.óó€€In€the€proceeding€initiated€by€BarbaraÐ Ð  ÐRaddatz,€OSHA€found€no€violation,€and€Raddatz€requested€a€hearingÐ ` ° Ðbefore€an€ALJ.€€òòId.óó€€Joan€Taylor's€allegations€were€still€underÐ ð @ Ðinvestigation€when€the€district€court's€injunction€issued.׃ ×Ý ƒÃÝòòÚ  Ú3Ú  ÚóóÝ  Ý×  ×€€òòId.óóÐ € Ð  Ðà ` àò ò2.€€Proceedings€in€the€district€courtó óÐ `  Ðà ` àIn€ruling€on€Rhode€Island's€motion€for€a€preliminaryÐ ð@  Ðinjunction,€the€district€court€held€that€the€administrativeÐ €Ð  Ðproceedings€were€barred€by€sovereign€immunity€principles.€€TheÐ ` Ðcourt€observed€that€in€òòAldenóó€v.€òòMaineóó,€527€U.S.€706€(1999),€theÐ  ð ÐSupreme€Court€had€contrasted€a€suit€brought€by€the€United€StatesÐ 0€ Ðwith€a€suit€brought€by€a€private€party€and€explained€that€"'[s]uitsÐ À Ðbrought€by€the€United€States€itself€require€the€exercise€ofÐ P  Ðpolitical€responsibility€for€each€suit€prosecuted€against€a€State,Ð à0 Ða€control€which€is€absent€from€a€broad€delegation€to€privateÐ pÀ Ðpersons€to€sue€nonconsenting€States.'"€€òòRhode€Islandóó,€115€F.€Supp.Ð P  Ð2d€at€273€(quoting€òòAldenóó,€527€U.S.€at€756).€€The€district€courtÐ à" Ðconcluded€that€the€same€reasoning€applied€to€federal€administrativeÐ  !p$ Ðproceedings.€€In€the€court's€view,€the€Secretary€could€investigateÐ °"& Ðalleged€violations€of€federal€law€and€determine€appropriate€relief,Ð @$( Ðbut€the€Secretary€could€not€rely€on€privately€prosecuted€adversaryÐ Ð% !* Ðproceedings€in€making€that€determination.€€€òòId.óó€at€274.Ð `'°", Ðà ` àThe€court€entered€a€preliminary€injunction€barring€anyÐ ° Ðfurther€prosecution€before€the€Department€of€Labor€of€theÐ @ Ðemployees'€claims€against€the€state€agency.€€òòId.óó€at€279.€€AlthoughÐ Ð  Ðthe€court€did€not€enjoin€OSHA€from€investigating€the€allegedÐ ` ° Ðviolations€on€which€those€claims€were€based€or€from€otherwiseÐ ð @ Ðseeking€to€ensure€the€state's€compliance€with€federal€law,€€òòid.óó,Ð € Ð  Ðits€ruling€does€not€seem€to€allow€the€administrative€proceedings€toÐ `  Ðcontinue€if€the€Secretary€decides€to€intervene€to€prosecute€theÐ  ð  Ðcomplaints€on€the€individuals'€behalf.Ð 0€  Ðà ` àBecause€the€district€court€had€effectively€decided€theÐ À Ðcase€on€the€merits,€the€parties€filed€a€stipulation€to€convert€theÐ P  Ðpreliminary€injunction€into€a€permanent€injunction€and€enter€finalÐ à0 Ðjudgment.€€The€court€entered€final€judgment€pursuant€to€thatÐ pÀ Ðstipulation.Ð P Ðà ` àThe€United€States€and€individual€appellants€filedÐ à Ðseparate€notices€of€appeal.€€However,€the€individual€appellantsÐ  p Ðfiled€their€notices€of€appeal€in€response€to€the€district€court'sÐ °  Ðgranting€of€the€preliminary€injunction.€€The€individuals'€noticesÐ @" Ðwere€then€rendered€moot€by€the€entry€of€judgment€and€a€permanentÐ Ð $ Ðinjunction.€€òòSeeóó€òòChaparro-Febusóó€v.€òòInt'l€Longshoremen€Ass'nóó,€983Ð `"°& ÐF.2d€325,€331€n.5€(1st€Cir.€1993)€(finding€plaintiffs'€complaintsÐ ð#@( Ðon€appeal€concerning€denial€of€preliminary€injunction€to€be€mootÐ €%Ð * Ðgiven€final€judgment€dismissing€case).€€Accordingly,€this€CourtÐ '`", Ðdismissed€the€individuals'€appeals.€€€The€individual€appellants'Ð  (ð#. Ðthen€moved€for€rehearing€and€for€consolidation€with€the€UnitedÐ 0*€%0 ÐStates's€appeal.€€We€concluded€that€the€consolidation€motion€servedÐ À+'2 Ðas€the€functional€equivalent€of€a€notice€of€appeal,€was€timelyÐ ° Ðfiled,€and€thus€conferred€jurisdiction.€€We€therefore€reinstatedÐ @ Ðthe€individuals'€appeal.Ð Ð  Ðà@88)ìàò òII.ó óˆÐ ` ° Ðò òA.€€Threshold€Issuesó óÐ @  Ðà ` àWriting€as€amicus€curiae,€the€American€Civil€LibertiesÐ  p  ÐUnion€of€Rhode€Island€("ACLU„RI")€raises€a€challenge€to€theÐ °  Ðjurisdiction€of€the€district€court€„„€and,€by€extension,€this€CourtÐ @  Є„€over€the€state's€claim€of€sovereign€immunity.€€As€a€generalÐ Ð  Ðmatter,€we€do€not€consider€arguments€advanced€only€by€an€amicus,Ð `° ÐòòUnited€Statesóó€v.€òòSturm,€Ruger€&€Co.óó,€84€F.3d€1,€6€(1st€Cir.€1996),Ð ð@ Ðnor€do€we€ordinarily€entertain€challenges€raised€for€the€first€timeÐ €Ð Ðon€appeal,€òòCampos-Orregoóó€v.€òòRiveraóó,€175€F.3d€89,€95€(1st€Cir.Ð ` Ð1999).€€Given€the€purportedly€jurisdictional€dimensions€of€ACLU„Ð  ð ÐRI's€arguments,€however,€we€shall€address€them€fully.€€òòSeeóó€òòIn€reÐ 0€ ÐHealthco€Int'l,€Inc.óó,€136€F.3d€45,€50€n.4€(1st€Cir.€1998)€("As€inÐ À Ðany€other€case,€we€must€consider,€òòsua€sponteóó€if€need€be,€whether€weÐ P   Ðpossess€subject€matter€jurisdiction€over€an€appeal.").Ð à0" Ðà ` àACLU„RI€argues€that€Rhode€Island€has€impermissibly€soughtÐ p!À$ Ðreview€of€agency€action€that€is€not€"final"€within€the€meaning€ofÐ #P& Ððð€704€of€the€APA.€€òòSeeóó€5€U.S.C.€ðð€704€(providing€for€judicialÐ $à( Ðreview€of€"final€agency€action").€€The€APA's€finality€requirementÐ  &p!* Ðallows€the€agency€an€opportunity€to€apply€its€expertise€and€correctÐ °'#, Ðits€mistakes,€it€avoids€disrupting€the€agency's€processes,€and€itÐ @)$. Ðrelieves€the€courts€from€having€to€engage€in€"piecemeal€reviewÐ Ð* &0 Ðwhich€at€the€least€is€inefficient€and€upon€completion€of€the€agencyÐ `,°'2 Ðprocess€might€prove€to€have€been€unnecessary."€€òòFTCóó€v.€òòStandard€OilÐ ° ÐCo.óó,€449€U.S.€232,€242€(1980).Ð @ Ðà ` àCourts€sometimes€have€viewed€the€finality€requirement€ofÐ Ð  Ðthe€APA€as€being€jurisdictional€in€nature.€€òòSeeóó,€òòe.g.óó,€òòDRG€FundingÐ ` ° ÐCorp.óó€v.€òòSec'y€of€Hous.€&€Urban€Dev.óó,€76€F.3d€1212,€1214€(D.C.€Cir.Ð ð @ Ð1996).€€In€our€view,€however,€the€issue€of€whether€the€APA€providesÐ € Ð  Ðfor€judicial€review€of€the€nonfinal€ruling€is€not€one€that,Ð `  Ðprecisely€speakinÔ#†XCßXXXCß#Ôg,€implicates€the€subject„matter€jurisdiction€ofÐ  ð  Ðthe€court.€€òòSeeóó€òòAir€Courier€Conferenceóó€v.€òòAm.€Postal€Workers€Unionóó,Ð 0€  Ð498€U.S.€517,€523€n.3€(1991)€("The€judicial€review€provisions€ofÐ À Ðthe€APA€are€not€jurisdictional€.€.€.€.").€€€Instead,€the€questionÐ P  Ðis€one€of€"[w]hether€a€cause€of€action€exists"€that€permits€reviewÐ à0 Ðof€an€agency's€interim€denial€of€a€state's€claim€of€sovereignÐ pÀ Ðimmunity.€€òòId.óó;€òòcf.óó€òòBellóó€v.€òòHoodóó,€327€U.S.€678,€682€(1946)€(notingÐ P Ðthat€"it€is€well€settled€that€the€failure€to€state€a€proper€causeÐ à Ðof€action€calls€for€a€judgment€on€the€merits€and€not€for€aÐ  p Ðdismissal€for€want€of€jurisdiction").Ð °  Ðà ` àEven€though€the€asserted€lack€of€finality€does€notÐ @" Ðdirectly€challenge€the€subject„matter€jurisdiction€of€the€districtÐ Ð $ Ðcourt,€the€question€of€whether€the€state€otherwise€has€a€validÐ `"°& Ðcause€of€action€is€an€important€one€that€we€address€as€a€thresholdÐ ð#@( Ðissue.€€òòóóRhode€Island€does€not€dispute€that€the€administrativeÐ €%Ð * Ðproceedings€were€not€yet€final€when€it€brought€its€claim€forÐ '`", Ðinjunctive€relief€in€the€court€below.€€Instead,€the€state€arguesÐ  (ð#. Ðthat€its€constitutional€claim€of€immunity€finds€footing,€not€in€theÐ 0*€%0 ÐAPA,€but€in€the€federal€court's€equitable€powers€and€in€the€moreÐ À+'2 Ðgeneral€grant€of€federal„question€jurisdiction€provided€by€28Ð ° ÐU.S.C.€ðð€1331.Ð @ Ðà ` àWe€agree€with€the€amicus€that€the€ALJ's€adverse€immunityÐ Ð  Ðdetermination€is€not€"final€agency€action"€within€the€meaning€ofÐ ` ° ÐAPA€ðð€704.€€As€the€statute€states,€"[a]€preliminary,€procedural,€orÐ ð @ Ðintermediate€agency€action€or€ruling€not€directly€reviewable€isÐ € Ð  Ðsubject€to€review€on€the€review€of€the€final€agency€action."€€5Ð `  ÐU.S.C.€ðð€704.€€Thus,€we€have€generally€held€that€a€final€decisionÐ  ð  Ðthat€may€be€reviewed€or€enforced€in€federal€court€is€one€thatÐ 0€  Ðresolves€not€only€the€underlying€claim,€but€also€the€relief€to€beÐ À Ðafforded€if€liability€is€found.€€òòRivera-Rosarioóó€v.€òòU.S.€Dep't€ofÐ P  ÐAgric.óó,€151€F.3d€34,€37€(1st€Cir.€1998).€€The€state's€claim€ofÐ à0 Ðimmunity€is€clearly€not€accompanied€by€a€final€determination€on€theÐ pÀ Ðunderlying€whistleblower€claim.€€As€such,€the€claim€does€notÐ P Ðqualify€as€"final"€under€the€APA.Ð à Ðà ` àThat€said,€we€are€not€convinced€that€the€absence€ofÐ  p Ð"final€agency€action"€renders€the€state's€claim€of€immunityÐ °  Ðunreviewable€until€such€time€as€the€Secretary€makes€a€finalÐ @" Ðliability€determination€on€the€individuals'€claims.€€Such€aÐ Ð $ Ðconclusion€would€essentially€deprive€the€state€of€the€very€immunityÐ `"°& Ðto€which€it€claims€entitlement€„„€at€least€insofar€as€the€stateÐ ð#@( Ðseeks€to€"prevent€the€indignity€of€[being]€subject[ed]€.€.€.€to€theÐ €%Ð * Ðcoercive€process€of€judicial€tribunals€at€the€instance€of€privateÐ '`", Ðparties."€€òòIn€re€Ayersóó,€123€U.S.€443,€505€(1887)€(noting€that€theÐ  (ð#. Ðright€to€be€free€from€such€proceedings€is€the€"very€object€andÐ 0*€%0 Ðpurpose"€of€sovereign€immunity).€€And€given€that€the€state'sÐ À+'2 Ðasserted€immunity€is€constitutional€in€scope,€òòseeóó€òòP.R.€Aqueduct€&Ð ° ÐSewer€Auth.óó€v.€òòMetcalf€&€Eddy,€Inc.óó,€506€U.S.€139,€145€(1993)Ð @ Ð(stating€that€sovereign€immunity€involves€"a€claim€to€a€fundamentalÐ Ð  Ðconstitutional€protection"),€òòóówe€are€bound€by€a€strong€presumptionÐ ` ° Ðin€favor€of€providing€the€state€some€vehicle€for€vindicating€itsÐ ð @ Ðrights.€€òòSeeóó€òòDavisóó€v.€òòPassmanóó,€442€U.S.€228,€242€(1979)€("[T]heÐ € Ð  Ðclass€of€those€litigants€who€allege€that€their€own€constitutionalÐ `  Ðrights€have€been€violated,€and€who€at€the€same€time€have€noÐ  ð  Ðeffective€means€other€than€the€judiciary€to€enforce€these€rights,Ð 0€  Ðmust€be€able€to€invoke€the€existing€jurisdiction€of€the€courts€forÐ À Ðthe€protection€of€their€justiciable€constitutional€rights.").Ð P  Ðà ` àAs€a€general€matter,€there€is€no€statute€expresslyÐ à0 Ðcreating€a€cause€of€action€against€federal€officers€forÐ pÀ Ðconstitutional€or€federal€statutory€violations.€€òòBut€cf.óó€42€U.S.C.Ð P Ððð€1983€(providing€a€statutory€cause€of€action€for€deprivations€ofÐ à Ðfederal€rights€against€officials€acting€under€color€of€òòstateóó€law).€Ð  p ÐNevertheless,€our€courts€have€long€recognized€that€federal€officersÐ °  Ðmay€be€sued€in€their€official€capacity€for€prospective€injunctiveÐ @" Ðrelief€to€prevent€ongoing€or€future€infringements€of€federalÐ Ð $ Ðrights.€€òòSeeóó€òòSchneideróó€v.€òòSmithóó,€390€U.S.€17€(1968);€òòLarsonóó€v.Ð `"°& ÐòòDomestic€&€Foreign€Commerce€Corp.óó,€337€U.S.€682€(1949);Ð ð#@( ÐòòPhiladelphia€Co.óó€v.€òòStimsonóó,€223€U.S.€605€(1912);€òòsee€generallyóóÐ €%Ð * ÐErwin€Chemerinsky,€òòFederal€Jurisdictionóó€ðð€9.2.2€(3d€ed.€1999).€Ð '`", ÐSuch€actions€are€based€on€the€grant€of€general€federal„questionÐ  (ð#. Ðjurisdiction€under€28€U.S.C.€ðð€1331€and€the€inherent€equity€powersÐ 0*€%0 Ðof€the€federal€courts.€€Though€the€existence€of€this€long„Ð À+'2 Ðrecognized€equitable€remedy€provides€a€useful€backdrop€for€ourÐ ° Ðanalysis,€it€does€not€entirely€dispose€of€the€immediate€questionÐ @ Ðbefore€us.€€We€must€determine€whether€a€cause€of€action€exists€thatÐ Ð  Ðallows€the€state€to€vindicate€its€claim€of€sovereign€immunity€withÐ ` ° Ðrespect€to€an€administrative€proceeding€where€there€is€no€finalÐ ð @ Ðreviewable€order€from€the€agency.Ð € Ð  Ðà ` àOur€examination€begins€with€"the€strong€presumption€thatÐ `  ÐCongress€intends€judicial€review€of€administrative€action."€€òòBowenóóÐ  ð  Ðv.€òòMich.€Acad.€of€Family€Physiciansóó,€476€U.S.€667,€670€(1986).€€TheÐ 0€  Ðpresumption€of€judicial€review€"may€be€overcome€'only€upon€aÐ À Ðshowing€of€clear€and€convincing€evidence€of€a€contrary€legislativeÐ P  Ðintent.'"€€òòTraynoróó€v.€òòTurnageóó,€485€U.S.€535,€542€(1988)€(quotingÐ à0 ÐòòAbbott€Labs.óó€v.€òòGardneróó,€387€U.S.€136,€141€(1967)).€€Thus,€evenÐ pÀ Ðwhere€a€litigant€is€unable€to€ground€his€action€on€either€aÐ P Ðspecific€or€general€statutory€review€provision,€judicial€relief€isÐ à Ðnot€necessarily€foreclosed.€€òòSeeóó€òòid.óó€at€545;€òòBowenóó,€476€U.S.€atÐ  p Ð672.€€Given€the€right€circumstances,€review€of€agency€action€may€beÐ °  Ðavailable€in€federal€district€court€utilizing€the€procedures€of€so„Ð @" Ðcalled€"nonstatutory€review."׃×Ý ƒÃÝòòÚ  Ú4Ú  ÚóóÝ  Ý×  ×€€òòChamber€of€Commerceóó€v.€òòReichóó,€74Ð Ð $ ÐF.3d€1322,€1328€(D.C.€Cir.€1996);€òòsee€generallyóó€Richard€H.€FallonÐ `"°& Ðet€al.,€òòHart€and€Wechsler's€The€Federal€Courts€and€The€FederalÐ ð#@( ÐSystemóó€995„99€(4th€ed.€1996)€(discussing€the€pedigree€and€evolutionÐ €%Ð * Ðof€nonstatutory€review).Ð '`", Ðà ` àThe€basic€premise€behind€nonstatutory€review€is€that,Ð ° Ðeven€after€the€passage€of€the€APA,€some€residuum€of€power€remainsÐ @ Ðwith€the€district€court€to€review€agency€action€that€is€òòultraÐ Ð  Ðviresóó.€€òòSeeóó€òòDartóó€v.€òòUnited€Statesóó,€848€F.2d€217,€224€(D.C.€Cir.Ð ` ° Ð1988).€€Such€claims€usually€take€the€form€of€a€suit€seeking€anÐ ð @ Ðinjunction,€often€accompanied€by€a€request€for€relief€under€theÐ € Ð  ÐDeclaratory€Judgment€Act,€28€U.S.C.€ðð€2201.€€òòSeeóó€Clark€Byse€&Ð `  ÐJoseph€V.€Fiocca,€òòSection€1361€of€the€Mandamus€and€Venue€Act€ofÐ  ð  Ð1962€and€"Nonstatutory"€Judicial€Review€of€Federal€AdministrativeÐ 0€  ÐActionóó,€81€Harv.€L.€Rev.€308,€322€(1967).€€The€nonstatutory€reviewÐ À Ðaction€finds€its€jurisdictional€toehold€in€the€general€grant€ofÐ P  Ðfederal„question€jurisdiction€of€28€U.S.C.€ðð€1331.€€òòMaxon€Marine,Ð à0 ÐInc.óó€v.€òòDir.€of€Office€of€Workers'€Comp.€Programsóó,€39€F.3d€144,€146Ð pÀ Ð(7th€Cir.€1994).Ð P Ðà ` àThe€most€notable€example€of€a€court€deployingÐ à Ðnonstatutory€review€after€the€passage€of€the€APA€can€be€found€inÐ  p ÐòòLeedomóó€v.€òòKyneóó,€358€U.S.€184€(1958).€€In€òòKyneóó,€the€Supreme€CourtÐ °  Ðheld€that€a€federal€district€court€had€jurisdiction€to€review€aÐ @" Ðcertification€decision€by€the€National€Labor€Relations€Board€thatÐ Ð $ Ðdirectly€conflicted€with€a€provision€of€the€National€LaborÐ `"°& ÐRelations€Act,€despite€the€absence€of€express€authorization€ofÐ ð#@( Ðjudicial€review€of€such€determinations.€€òòSeeóó€òòid.óó€at€188-89.€€TheÐ €%Ð * ÐCourt€stated€that€it€"cannot€lightly€infer€that€Congress€does€notÐ '`", Ðintend€judicial€protection€of€rights€it€confers€against€agencyÐ  (ð#. Ðaction€taken€in€excess€of€delegated€powers."€€òòId.óó€at€190.€€Thus,Ð 0*€%0 Ðafter€finding€that€the€agency€was€violating€a€"clear"€statutoryÐ À+'2 Ðright,€the€òòKyneóó€Court€held€that€an€injunctive€remedy€to€enforceÐ ° Ðthat€right€was€available€in€federal€district€court€under€theÐ @ Ð"statutory€provisions€governing€general€jurisdiction."€€òòId.óóÐ Ð  Ðà ` àSubsequent€decisions€have€noted€that€òòKyneóó€describes€aÐ ` ° Ðnarrow€exception€to€the€general€rule€of€exhaustion€for€review€ofÐ ð @ Ðadministrative€action.€€òòSeeóó,€òòe.g.óó,€òòBoireóó€v.€òòGreyhound€Corp.óó,€376Ð € Ð  ÐU.S.€473,€481€(1964).€€In€particular,€the€Supreme€Court€hasÐ `  Ðemphasized€that€certain€critical€factors€must€be€present€to€invokeÐ  ð  Ðnonstatutory€reviewòòóó.€€One€such€factor€is€that€the€agency's€nonfinalÐ 0€  Ðaction€must€"wholly€deprive€the€[party]€of€a€meaningful€andÐ À Ðadequate€means€of€vindicating€its€.€.€.€rights."€€òòBd.€of€GovernorsÐ P  Ðof€Fed.€Reserve€Sys.óó€v.€òòMCorp€Fin.€Inc.óó,€502€U.S.€32,€43€(1991).€Ð à0 ÐThe€other€critical€factor€is€that€Congress€must€not€have€clearlyÐ pÀ Ðintended€to€preclude€review€of€the€agency's€particularÐ P Ðdetermination.€€òòId.óó€at€44.€€However,€the€evidence€of€Congress'sÐ à Ðintent€to€preclude€review€must€be€clear€and€convincing;€it€is€notÐ  p Ðenough€for€the€agency€to€merely€contend€"that€a€statutory€provisionÐ °  Ðthat€provide[s]€for€judicial€review€implie[s],€by€its€silence,€aÐ @" Ðpreclusion€of€review€of€the€contested€determination."€€òòId.óó€€WhereÐ Ð $ Ðeither€of€these€factors€is€absent,€nonstatutory€review€isÐ `"°& Ðunavailable.€€òòSeeóó€òòid.óóÐ ð#@( Ðà ` àNotwithstanding€the€limited€circumstances€under€whichÐ €%Ð * Ðnonstatutory€review€is€available,€we€find€that€it€was€anÐ '`", Ðappropriate€vehicle€for€the€state's€claim€of€immunity€in€this€case.€Ð  (ð#. ÐRhode€Island's€claim€satisfies€the€specific€limitations€placed€onÐ 0*€%0 Ðnonstatutory€review€in€the€wake€of€òòKyneóó;€it€satisfies€other€Ð À+'2 Ðconsiderations€of€equity€generally€implicated€by€such€claims;€andÐ ° Ðit€involves€a€constitutional€right€that€is€amenable€to€resolutionÐ @ Ðby€a€federal€district€court.Ð Ð  Ðà ` àFirst,€it€seems€beyond€cavil€that,€absent€immediateÐ ` ° Ðjudicial€review,€an€agency's€adverse€immunity€determination€willÐ ð @ Ð"wholly€deprive€the€[state]€of€a€meaningful€and€adequate€means€ofÐ € Ð  Ðvindicating€its€.€.€.€rights."€€òòMCorpóó,€502€U.S.€at€43.€€Since€theÐ `  Ðstate's€sovereign€rights€encompass€more€than€a€mere€defense€fromÐ  ð  Ðliability€„„€they€include€an€immunity€from€being€haled€before€aÐ 0€  Ðtribunal€by€private€parties€„„€those€rights€would€be€lost€withoutÐ À Ðan€early€and€authoritative€ruling.€€òòSeeóó€òòP.R.€Aqueduct€&€SewerÐ P  ÐAuth.óó,€506€U.S.€at€145.Ð à0 Ðà ` àFurthermore,€we€find€no€indication€that€CongressÐ pÀ Ðspecifically€intended€to€preclude€review€of€the€agency's€immunityÐ P Ðdeterminations.€€The€SWDA€provides€a€mechanism€for€facilitatingÐ à Ðjudicial€review€of€final€determinations€of€whether€an€employer€hasÐ  p Ðunlawfully€retaliated€against€an€employee,€òòseeóó€42€U.S.C.€ððððÐ °  Ð6971(b),€6976(b),€and€such€review€procedures€are€normallyÐ @" Ðconsidered€exclusive.€€òòSeeóó€òòThunder€Basin€Coal€Co.óó€v.€òòReichóó,€510Ð Ð $ ÐU.S.€200,€215€(1994);€òòWhitney€Nat'l€Bankóó€v.€òòBank€of€New€Orleans€&Ð `"°& ÐTrust€Co.óó,€379€U.S.€411,€420€(1965).€€However,€an€agency's€rulingÐ ð#@( Ðon€the€state's€entitlement€to€sovereign€immunity€is€"whollyÐ €%Ð * Ðcollateral€to€a€statute's€review€provisions€and€outside€theÐ '`", Ðagency's€expertise."€€òòThunder€Basinóó,€510€U.S.€at€212.€€We€thereforeÐ  (ð#. Ðâ âfind€no€intention€to€preclude€review.Ð 0*€%0 Ðà ` àThe€general€equitable€considerations€that€favor€reliefÐ ° Ðâ âbased€on€a€nonstatutory€review€action€are€also€aligned€in€RhodeÐ @ ÐIsland's€favor.€€The€state's€right€to€relief€is€premised€on€a€claimÐ Ð  Ðthat€federal€officials€are€violating€a€clear€right€that€isÐ ` ° Ðconstitutional€in€nature.€€òòSeeóó€òòHuntóó€v.€òòCommodity€Futures€TradingÐ ð @ ÐComm'nóó,€591€F.2d€1234,€1236€(7th€Cir.€1979)€("[I]f€an€agency€wouldÐ € Ð  Ðviolate€a€clear€right€of€a€petitioner€by€disregarding€a€specificÐ `  Ðand€unambiguous€statutory,€regulatory,€or€constitutional€directive,Ð  ð  Ða€court€will€not€require€the€petitioners€to€exhaust€hisÐ 0€  Ðadministrative€remedies€and€will€intervene€immediately.").€€InÐ À Ðaddition,€we€have€already€noted€that€the€SWDA's€review€provisionsÐ P  Ðdo€not€allow€for€immediate€review€of€immunity€rulings,€and€that€theÐ à0 Ðstate's€immunity€would€be€effectively€lost€absent€judicial€review.€Ð pÀ ÐòòSeeóó€òòMoralesóó€v.€òòTrans€World€Airlinesóó,€504€U.S.€374,€381€(1992)€("ItÐ P Ðis€a€basic€doctrine€of€equity€jurisprudence€that€courts€of€equityÐ à Ðshould€not€act€.€.€.€when€the€moving€party€has€an€adequate€remedyÐ  p Ðat€law€and€will€not€suffer€irreparable€injury€if€denied€equitableÐ °  Ðrelief.")€(citations€and€quotation€marks€omitted).€€Yet€anotherÐ @" Ðfactor€supporting€recognition€of€the€state's€claim€is€that€its€suitÐ Ð $ Ðfor€injunctive€relief€involves€a€question€that€is€strictlyÐ `"°& Ðconstitutional€in€scope,€and€does€not€require€the€application€ofÐ ð#@( Ðagency€expertise.€€òòCompareóó€òòCalifanoóó€v.€òòSandersóó,€430€U.S.€99,€109Ð €%Ð * Ð(1977)€("Constitutional€questions€obviously€are€unsuited€toÐ '`", Ðresolution€in€administrative€hearing€procedures€and,€therefore,Ð  (ð#. Ðaccess€to€the€courts€is€essential€to€the€decision€of€suchÐ 0*€%0 Ðquestions.")Ô‡XCßXXXCßÔ,€òòwithóó€òòWeinbergeróó€v.€òòBentex€Pharm.€Inc.óó,€412€U.S.€645,Ð À+'2 Ð653€(1973)€(declining€relief€where€the€issue€was€"peculiarly€suitedÐ ° Ðto€initial€determination"€by€the€agency).€€The€state's€immunity€isÐ @ Ða€question€best€addressed€by€a€federal€court.Ð Ð  Ðà ` àFinally,€although€sovereign€immunity€is€generallyÐ ` ° Ðasserted€in€a€defensive€posture,€we€believe€that€the€peculiaritiesÐ ð @ Ðof€raising€the€claim€in€an€administrative€proceeding€make€itÐ € Ð  Ðappropriate€to€use€immunity€as€a€sword€(rather€than€a€shield)€in€anÐ `  Ðaction€for€nonstatutory€review.€€There€is€precedent€in€this€circuitÐ  ð  Ðfor€such€a€proposition.€€In€òòUnited€Statesóó€v.€òòPuerto€Ricoóó,€287€F.3dÐ 0€  Ð212€(1st€Cir.€2002),€we€addressed€a€suit€for€injunctive€andÐ À Ðdeclaratory€relief€brought€by€the€federal€government€to€protect€itsÐ P  Ðsovereign€interest€against€being€forced€to€appear€in€anÐ à0 Ðadministrative€proceeding€of€the€Commonwealth€of€Puerto€Rico.€Ð pÀ ÐThere,€we€held€that€the€United€States€had€not€waived€its€immunityÐ P Ðin€proceedings€before€the€administrative€agency€and€that€theÐ à Ðfederal€government€was€entitled€to€injunctive€and€declaratoryÐ  p Ðrelief€consistent€with€that€conclusion.€€òòId.óó€at€221.€€Although€theÐ °  Ðinstant€case€involves€the€sovereign€interests€of€a€state€entityÐ @" Ð(rather€than€a€federal€one),€we€so€no€reason€to€foreclose€relief€onÐ Ð $ Ðthat€basis.Ð `"°& Ðà ` àWe€therefore€hold€that€procedures€of€nonstatutory€reviewÐ ð#@( Ðpermitted€the€district€court€to€address€the€state's€immunity€claim.€Ð €%Ð * ÐSeveral€district€courts€have€already€enjoined€administrativeÐ '`", Ðwhistleblower€proceedings€under€29€C.F.R.€part€24€that€wereÐ  (ð#. Ðinitiated€against€a€non„consenting€state€by€a€private€party.€€òòSeeóóÐ 0*€%0 ÐòòConn.€Dep't€of€Envtl.€Prot.óó€v.€òòOSHAóó,€138€F.€Supp.€2d€285€(D.€Conn.Ð À+'2 Ð2001);€òòFloridaóó€v.€òòUnited€Statesóó,€133€F.€Supp.€2d€1280€(N.D.€Fla.Ð ° Ð2001);€òòOhio€Envtl.€Prot.€Agencyóó€v.€òòU.S.€Dep't€of€Laboróó,€121€F.Ð @ ÐSupp.€2d€1155€(S.D.€Ohio€2000).€€Although€neither€the€decision€ofÐ Ð  Ðthe€court€below€nor€the€decisions€from€other€districts€expresslyÐ ` ° Ðrely€on€the€principles€of€nonstatutory€review,€we€think€that€theirÐ ð @ Ðapproach€and€reasoning€fit€squarely€within€that€doctrine.Ð € Ð  Ðà ` àWe€note,€however,€that€an€action€before€the€districtÐ `  Ðcourt€may€not€be€the€òòonlyóó€equitable€means€of€seeking€review€of€anÐ  ð  Ðagency's€ruling€with€respect€to€an€assertion€of€sovereign€immunityÐ 0€  Ðby€a€state.€€As€one€prominent€authority€has€stated,€"initialÐ À Ðdistrict€court€action,€followed€by€appeal€to€the€court€of€appeals,Ð P  Ðseems€almost€self-defeating;€in€the€rare€case€that€may€justifyÐ à0 Ðjudicial€intervention,€it€would€be€better€to€devise€a€direct€remedyÐ pÀ Ðin€the€court€of€appeals€.€.€.€."€€16€Charles€Alan€Wright,€Arthur€R.Ð P ÐMiller€&€Edward€H.€Cooper€€òòFederal€Practice€and€Procedureóó€ðð€3943,Ð à Ðat€815€(3d€ed.€1996).Ð  p Ðà ` àArguably,€direct€review€in€the€court€of€appeals€wouldÐ °  Ðconform€more€closely€to€the€judicial€review€provisions€that€governÐ @" Ðliability€determinations€under€the€SWDA.€€In€order€to€obtain€suchÐ Ð $ Ðreview,€a€petitioner€could€seek€interlocutory€review€of€theÐ `"°& Ðagency's€immunity€ruling€based€on€an€analogy€to€the€collateralÐ ð#@( Ðorder€doctrine.€€òòSeeóó€òòMeredithóó€v.€òòFed.€Mine€Safety€&€Health€Rev.Ð €%Ð * ÐComm'nóó,€177€F.3d€1042,€1046„52€(D.C.€Cir.€1999)€(employing€theÐ '`", Ðcollateral€order€doctrine€of€òòCohenóó€v.€òòBeneficial€Indus.€Loan€Corp.óó,Ð  (ð#. Ð337€U.S.€541€(1949),€to€review€an€agency's€qualified„immunityÐ 0*€%0 Ðruling).€€In€clear€cases,€the€petitioning€party€could€also€seek€aÐ À+'2 Ðwrit€of€prohibition€as€necessary€or€appropriate€in€aid€of€theÐ ° Ðappeals€court's€jurisdiction.€€òòSeeóó€28€U.S.C.€ðð€1651(a)€(the€AllÐ @ ÐWrits€Act);€òòsee€alsoóó€òòIn€re€Perryóó,€859€F.2d€1043,€1046„50€(1st€Cir.Ð Ð  Ð1988)€(considering€a€petition€for€writ€of€prohibition€against€anÐ ` ° Ðadministrative€agency).€€But€in€situations€such€as€this,€whereÐ ð @ Ð"even€good€lawyers€and€good€judges€may€be€confused€about€whereÐ € Ð  Ðreview€of€a€particular€action€should€be€sought,"€Note,€òòJurisdictionÐ `  Ðto€Review€Federal€Administrative€Actions:€District€Court€or€CourtÐ  ð  Ðof€Appealsóó,€88€Harv.€L.€Rev.€980,€997„98€(1975)€(quotation€marksÐ 0€  Ðand€footnotes€omitted),€we€take€a€flexible€approach€that€ensuresÐ À Ðthat€litigants€retain€a€practical€opportunity€to€subjectÐ P  Ðadministrative€action€to€judicial€control.Ð à0 Ðà ` àWe€conclude€that€this€action€was€properly€before€theÐ pÀ Ðdistrict€court€and€that€the€action€has,€in€turn,€properly€arrivedÐ P Ðbefore€this€panel.׃×Ý ƒÃÝòòÚ  Ú5Ú  ÚóóÝ  Ý×  ×€€We€therefore€turn€our€attention€to€theÐ à Ðquestions€of€whether€the€district€court€erred€in€holding€that€theÐ  p Ðstate€was€entitled€to€sovereign€immunity€in€the€administrativeÐ °  Ðproceedings€and€whether€injunctive€relief€was€an€appropriate€meansÐ @" Ðof€protecting€the€state's€interests.Ð Ð $ Ðò òB.€€Preliminary€injunctionó óÐ ° Ðà ` àUnder€this€circuit's€formulation,€trial€courts€follow€aÐ à Ðfour-part€framework€in€determining€whether€preliminary€injunctiveÐ  p Ðrelief€is€appropriate.€€The€district€court€considers:€first,€theÐ °  Ðlikelihood€that€the€party€requesting€the€injunction€will€succeed€onÐ @  Ðthe€merits;€second,€the€potential€for€irreparable€harm€if€theÐ Ð   Ðinjunction€is€denied;€third,€the€balance€of€hardships€to€theÐ `°  Ðparties€if€injunctive€relief€is€either€granted€or€denied;€andÐ ð@  Ðfourth,€the€effect€of€the€court's€ruling€on€the€public€interest.€Ð €Ð  ÐòòRoss-Simons€of€Warwick,€Inc.óó€v.€òòBaccarat,€Inc.óó,€102€F.3d€12,€15Ð ` Ð(1st€Cir.€1996).Ð  ð Ðà ` àWe€generally€review€the€district€court's€grant€or€denialÐ 0€ Ðof€a€preliminary€injunction€for€an€abuse€of€discretion.€€òòId.óó€€ThisÐ À Ðdeferential€standard,€however,€applies€only€to€"issues€of€judgmentÐ P  Ðand€balancing€of€conflicting€factors,"€and€we€still€review€rulingsÐ à0 Ðon€abstract€legal€issues€de€novo€and€findings€of€fact€for€clearÐ pÀ Ðerror.€€òòCablevision€of€Boston,€Inc.óó€v.€òòPub.€Improvement€Comm'nóó,€184Ð P  ÐF.3d€88,€96€(1st€Cir.€1999)€(quoting€òòOcean€Spray€Cranberries,€Inc.óóÐ à" Ðv.€òòPepsico,€Inc.óó,€160€F.3d€58,€61€n.1€(1st€Cir.€1998)).Ð  !p$ Ðà ` àò ò1.€€Success€on€the€meritsó óÐ °"& Ðà ` àAppellants€argue€that€the€state€has€no€claim€to€sovereignÐ $à( Ðimmunity€in€the€privately€prosecuted€administrative€proceedings€atÐ  &p!* Ðissue€here.€€Recently,€however,€the€Supreme€Court€handed€down€itsÐ °'#, Ðdecision€in€òòFederal€Maritime€Commissionóó€v.€òòSouth€Carolina€StateÐ @)$. ÐPorts€Authorityóó,€122€S.€Ct.€1864€(2002)€("òòSCSPAóó").€€We€think€thisÐ Ð* &0 Ðdecision€fairly€disposes€of€any€argument€by€the€appellants€that,€asÐ `,°'2 Ða€general€proposition,€a€state's€traditional€immunity€from€suitÐ ° Ðdoes€not€extend€to€administrative€proceedings€initiated€andÐ @ Ðprosecuted€by€private€citizens.Ð Ð  Ðà ` àIn€òòSCSPAóó,€the€Court€faced€the€question€of€whether€stateÐ ` ° Ðsovereign€immunity€precludes€the€Federal€Maritime€Commission,€anÐ ð @ Ðexecutive„branch€administrative€agency,€from€adjudicating€a€privateÐ € Ð  Ðparty's€complaint€that€a€state-run€port€has€violated€the€ShippingÐ `  ÐAct€of€1984,€46€U.€S.€C.€App.€ðð€1701€òòet€seq.óó€€After€determiningÐ  ð  Ðthat€the€proceedings€before€the€agency€very€much€resembled€a€civilÐ 0€  Ðlawsuit,€the€Court€held€that€"state€sovereign€immunity€bars€theÐ À Ð[agency]€from€adjudicating€complaints€filed€by€a€private€partyÐ P  Ðagainst€a€nonconsenting€state."€€òòSCSPAóó,€122€S.€Ct.€at€1874.€€TheÐ à0 ÐCourt€reasoned:Ð pÀ ÐÓÓà8 ` àif€the€Framers€thought€it€an€impermissibleÐ P Ðaffront€to€a€State's€dignity€to€be€required€toÐ È Ðanswer€the€complaints€of€private€parties€inÐ à Ðfederal€courts,€we€cannot€imagine€that€theyÐ X¨ Ðwould€have€found€it€acceptable€to€compel€aÐ  p ÐState€to€do€exactly€the€same€thing€before€theÐ è8 Ðadministrative€tribunal€of€an€agency€.€.€.€.а ` x` x ÐÌÓºÓòòId.óóÐ @" Ðà ` àAlthough€òòSCSPAóó€involved€a€different€administrativeÐ Ð $ Ðagency,€a€different€federal€statute,€and€a€different€scheme€ofÐ `"°& Ðadministrative€adjudication,€we€see€no€basis€for€distinguishingÐ ð#@( ÐòòSCSPAóó's€central€holding.€€The€proceedings€under€29€C.F.R.€part€24Ð €%Ð * Ðshare€with€proceedings€under€the€Shipping€Act€the€salientÐ '`", Ðcharacteristics€that€led€the€Supreme€Court€to€determine€that€suchÐ  (ð#. Ðadjudications€were€the€"type€of€proceedings€from€which€the€FramersÐ 0*€%0 Ðwould€have€thought€the€States€possessed€immunity€when€they€agreedÐ À+'2 Ðto€enter€the€Union."€òòId.óó€at€1872.€€That€is,€both€proceedings€areÐ ° Ðadjudicated€before€an€ALJ,€whose€role€is€similar€to€that€of€a€trialÐ @ Ðjudge,€òòid.óó;€both€proceedings€are€conducted€in€a€manner€that€roughlyÐ Ð  Ðconforms€to€the€rules€of€procedure€that€govern€the€course€of€aÐ ` ° Ðtraditional€civil€lawsuit,€òòid.óó€at€1873„74;€and,€finally,€bothÐ ð @ Ðproceedings€culminate€in€a€final€decision€that€includes€the€typesÐ € Ð  Ðof€relief€typically€available€in€civil€litigation,€òòseeóó€òòid.óó€at€1874.€Ð `  ÐWe€therefore€conclude€that€a€state€is€generally€capable€of€invokingÐ  ð  Ðsovereign€immunity€in€proceedings€initiated€by€a€private€partyÐ 0€  Ðunder€29€C.F.R.€part€24.Ð À Ðà ` àOur€inquiry,€however,€is€not€entirely€at€an€end.€€TheÐ P  Ðdoctrine€of€sovereign€immunity€is€subject€to€numerous€exceptions,Ð à0 Ðòòseeóó€òòAldenóó,€527€U.S.€at€755„57€(summarizing€the€limitations€andÐ pÀ Ðexceptions€to€the€states'€sovereign€immunity),€and€both€the€UnitedÐ P ÐStates€and€individual€appellants€contend€that€one€or€more€of€theseÐ à Ðexceptions€deprive€Rhode€Island€of€its€immunity€in€the€case€atÐ  p Ðhand.€€We€address€these€claims€in€turn.Ð °  Ðà ` àà ¨ àò òa.€€Waiver€of€immunityó óÐ @" Ðà ` àIt€has€long€been€recognized€that€a€state's€sovereignÐ  !p$ Ðimmunity€is€"a€personal€privilege€which€[the€state]€may€waive€atÐ °"& Ðpleasure."€€òòClarkóó€v.€òòBarnardóó,€108€U.S.€436,€447€(1883);€òòseeÐ @$( Ðgenerallyóó€òòArecibo€Cmty.€Health€Care,€Inc.óó€v.€òòPuerto€Ricoóó,€270€F.3dÐ Ð% !* Ð17,€24„25€(1st€Cir.€2001)€(discussing€waiver€principles),€òòpetitionÐ `'°", Ðfor€cert.€filedóó,€70€U.S.L.W.€3669€(U.S.€Apr€15,€2002)€(No.Ð ð(@$. Ð01-1545).€€However,€we€do€not€make€a€finding€of€waiver€lightly,€soÐ €*Ð%0 Ðthe€"test€for€determining€whether€a€State€has€waived€its€immunityÐ ,`'2 Ðfrom€federal-court€jurisdiction€is€a€stringent€one."€€òòAtascaderoÐ ° ÐState€Hosp.óó€v.€òòScanlonóó,€473€U.S.€234,€241€(1985).€€We€address€twoÐ @ Ðpossible€bases€for€finding€waiver€„„€the€first€argued€by€theÐ Ð  Ðindividual€appellants,€and€the€second€raised€by€us€òòsua€sponteóó€inÐ ` ° Ðlight€of€another€recent€decision€of€the€Supreme€Court.Ð ð @ Ðà ` àFirst,€in€a€curious€variation€on€waiver€doctrine,€theÐ € Ð  Ðindividual€appellants€make€the€novel€contention€that€Rhode€IslandÐ `  Ðis€a€"partial€sovereign,"€unable€to€invoke€the€full€extent€ofÐ  ð  Ðsovereign€immunity€available€to€other€states.€€The€appellants'Ð 0€  Ðargument€begins€with€the€premise€that,€at€the€time€the€UnitedÐ À ÐStates€Constitution€was€ratified,€Rhode€Island€maintained€aÐ P  Ðprovision€in€its€colonial€charter€allowing€it€to€sue€or€be€sued€inÐ à0 Ðthe€courts.€€Appellants€then€read€the€existence€of€this€provision,Ð pÀ Ðalong€with€Rhode€Island's€failure€to€explicitly€reserve€the€rightÐ P Ðto€claim€sovereign€status€in€subsequent€manifestations€of€its€stateÐ à Ðconstitution,€as€conclusive€proof€that€Rhode€Island€has€noÐ  p Ðauthority€to€now€claim€any€degree€of€sovereign€immunity.Ð °  Ðà ` àA€similar€line€of€reasoning€has€already€been€consideredÐ @" Ðand€rejected€by€the€Supreme€Court.€€In€the€dissenting€opinion€inÐ Ð $ ÐòòAldenóó,€Justice€Souter€seized€upon€the€historical€experience€ofÐ `"°& ÐRhode€Island€as€proof€that€the€concept€of€sovereign€immunityÐ ð#@( Ðremained€unsettled€at€the€time€of€the€Constitution's€ratification.€Ð €%Ð * ÐòòSeeóó€òòAldenóó,€527€U.S.€at€769„70€(Souter,€J.,€dissenting).€€However,Ð '`", ÐòòAldenóó's€majority€opinion€drew€a€wholly€different€conclusion€fromÐ  (ð#. Ðthe€existence€of€sue„or„be„sued€provisions€in€the€charters€of€someÐ 0*€%0 Ðcolonies.€€As€the€Court€stated,Ð À+'2 ÐÓÓà8 ` àThe€handful€of€state€statutory€andÐ ° Ðconstitutional€provisions€authorizing€suits€orÐ xÈ Ðpetitions€of€right€against€States€onlyÐ @ Ðconfirms€the€prevalence€of€the€traditionalÐ X Ðunderstanding€that€a€State€could€not€be€suedÐ Ð  Ðin€the€absence€of€an€express€waiver,€for€ifÐ ˜è Ðthe€understanding€were€otherwise,€theÐ ` ° Ðprovisions€would€have€been€unnecessary.Ð( x` x` x ÐÌÓÐÓòòId.óó€at€724.€€The€majority€opinion€also€noted€that€any€argument€thatÐ ¸   ÐRhode€Island€did€not€recognize€its€own€sovereign€status€is€furtherÐ H ˜  Ðbelied€by€Rhode€Island's€proclamation€in€its€ratificationÐ Ø(  Ðconvention€that€"'[i]t€is€declared€by€the€Convention,€that€theÐ h¸  Ðjudicial€power€of€the€United€States,€in€cases€in€which€a€state€mayÐ øH  Ðbe€a€party,€does€not€extend€to€criminal€prosecutions,€or€toÐ ˆØ Ðauthorize€any€suit€by€any€person€against€a€state.'"€€òòAldenóó,€527Ð h ÐU.S.€at€718€(quoting€1€Jonathan€Elliot,€òòDebates€on€the€FederalÐ ¨ø ÐConstitutionóó€336€(2d€ed.€1854)).Ð 8ˆ Ðà ` àIf€the€analysis€of€the€òòAldenóó€majority€were€not€potentÐ È Ðenough,€two€additional€factors€counsel€in€favor€of€rejecting€thisÐ X¨ Ðnovel€waiver€argument.€€First,€the€argument€depends€almost€entirelyÐ è8 Ðon€the€existence€of€a€provision€merely€allowing€Rhode€Island€to€sueÐ xÈ! Ðor€be€sued€in€its€own€courts.€€The€Supreme€Court€has€repeatedlyÐ  X# Ðheld€that€such€provisions€are€insufficient€to€waive€the€state'sÐ ˜!è% Ðimmunity€from€suit€in€a€òòfederalóó€forum.€€òòSeeóó,€òòe.g.óó,€òòCollege€Sav.Ð (#x' ÐBankóó€v.€òòFla.€Prepaid€Postsecondary€Ed.€Expense€Bd.óó,€527€U.S.€666,Ð ¸$ ) Ð676€(1999);€òòAtascadero€State€Hosp.óó,€473€U.S.€at€241;€òòFla.€Dep't€ofÐ H&˜!+ ÐHealth€&€Rehab.€Servs.óó€v.€òòFla.€Nursing€Home€Ass'nóó,€450€U.S.€147,Ð Ø'(#- Ð150€(1981)€(per€curiam).€€Second,€although€the€individualÐ h)¸$/ Ðappellants€contend€that,€under€the€state's€organic€law,€RhodeÐ ø*H&1 ÐIsland€has€òòneveróó€been€entitled€to€sovereign€immunity,€the€highestÐ ˆ,Ø'3 Ðcourt€of€the€state€has€long€recognized€that,€absent€statutoryÐ ° Ðabrogation,€Rhode€Island€adheres€strictly€to€the€doctrine€ofÐ @ Ðsovereign€immunity.€€òòSeeóó€òòLairdóó€v.€òòChrysler€Corp.óó,€460€A.2d€425,€428Ð Ð  Ð(R.I.€1983);€òòsee€alsoóó€òòBeckeróó€v.€òòBeaudoinóó,€261€A.2d€896,€901„02Ð ` ° Ð(R.I.€1970)€(abolishing€the€doctrine€of€municipal€immunity€butÐ ð @ Ðemphasizing€that€"it€is€to€be€understood€that€this€decision€doesÐ € Ð  Ðnot€in€any€manner€abolish€or€limit€the€sovereign€immunity€thatÐ `  Ðinheres€in€the€state€itself").€€For€these€reasons,€we€decline€toÐ  ð  Ðadopt€the€individual€appellants'€proposal€that€we€recognize€aÐ 0€  Ð"Rhode€Island€exception"€to€the€general€principles€of€sovereignÐ À Ðimmunity€embedded€in€the€structure€of€the€Constitution.׃×Ý ƒÃÝòòÚ  Ú6Ú  ÚóóÝ  Ý×  ×Ð P  Ðà ` àIn€order€to€assess€a€second€possible€ground€for€waiver,Ð ° Ðwe€asked€the€parties€the€question€of€whether,€in€light€of€theÐ @ ÐSupreme€Court's€recent€decision€in€òòLapidesóó€v.€òòBoard€of€Regents€ofÐ Ð  Ðthe€University€System€of€Georgiaóó,€122€S.€Ct.€1640€(2002),€the€stateÐ ` ° Ðwaived€its€immunity€by€filing€an€action€in€federal€district€court.€Ð ð @ ÐRhode€Island€and€the€United€States€both€agree€that€the€òòLapidesóóÐ € Ð  Ðdecision€is€inapplicable.€€However,€the€individual€appellantsÐ `  Ðdisagree€and€contend€that€the€state's€litigation€conduct€did€indeedÐ  ð  Ðstrip€it€of€its€immunity€from€suit.Ð 0€  Ðà ` àIn€òòLapidesóó,€the€plaintiff€brought€suit€in€state€courtÐ À Ðagainst€an€arm€of€the€state€of€Georgia,€alleging€violations€ofÐ P  Ðstate€and€federal€law.€€The€state€entity€removed€the€case€toÐ à0 Ðfederal€court,€and€then€moved€to€dismiss,€asserting€that€it€wasÐ pÀ Ðimmune€from€suit€in€federal€court€under€the€Eleventh€Amendment.€Ð P ÐThe€Supreme€Court€noted€that€by€removing€the€case€the€state€entityÐ à Ð"òòvoluntarilyóó€invoked€the€jurisdiction€of€the€federal€court,"€òòid.óó€atÐ  p Ð1645€(emphasis€in€original).€€Accordingly,€the€Court€held€thatÐ °  Ð"removal€is€a€form€of€voluntary€invocation€of€a€federal€court'sÐ @" Ðjurisdiction€sufficient€to€waive€the€State's€otherwise€validÐ Ð $ Ðobjection€to€litigation€of€a€matter€.€.€.€in€a€federal€forum."€€òòId.óóÐ `"°& Ðat€1646.Ð ð#@( Ðà ` àThe€individual€appellants€read€òòLapidesóó€broadly€to€meanÐ €%Ð * Ðthat€a€state€waives€its€immunity€by€voluntarily€participating€inÐ '`", Ðany€facet€of€a€federal€adjudicative€proceeding.€€In€the€words€ofÐ  (ð#. Ðthe€individual€appellants:Ð 0*€%0 ÐÓÓà8 ` àRhode€Island€has€engaged€in€a€form€of€"RussianÐ À+'2 Ðroulette"€.€.€.€.€€It€acceded€to€theÐ ˆ,Ø'3 ÐAdministrative€forum€when€it€thought€it€couldÐ ° Ðdispose€of€the€case,€and€then€reverted€to€aÐ xÈ Ðsovereign€immunity€defense€after€completingÐ @ Ðdiscovery,€including€depositions,€issuance€ofÐ X Ðsubpoena,€nineteen€days€of€hearing€before€anÐ Ð  Ð[ALJ],€and€then€was€hit€with€an€adverseÐ ˜è Ðdecision.€€Adopting€sovereign€immunity€at€suchÐ ` ° Ða€late€point€in€the€litigation€is€to€wronglyÐ ( x Ðseek€"an€unfair€tactical€advantage."Ðð @` x` x ÐÌÓÀåÓIndividual€Appellants'€Supp.€Br.€at€6€(quoting€òòLapidesóó,€122€S.€Ct.Ð € Ð  Ðat€1644).€€According€to€the€individual€appellants,€the€state€couldÐ `  Ðhave€preserved€its€immunity€onlyÔ#†XCßXXXCßR•#Ô€by€failing€to€appear€before€theÐ  ð  ÐALJ€and€refusing€to€participate€in€the€administrative€proceedingsÐ 0€  Ðentirely.€€òòSeeóó€òòid.óó€at€16.Ð À Ðà ` àThis€approach€to€waiver€is€startling€in€its€breadth€and,Ð P  Ðmore€importantly,€appears€to€conflict€directly€with€wellÐ à0 Ðestablished€principles€of€law.€€It€has€repeatedly€been€held€that€aÐ pÀ Ðstate€may€raise€its€immunity€from€suit€at€any€time€during€theÐ P Ðproceedings,€including€on€appeal.€€òòSeeóó€òòEdelmanóó€v.€òòJordanóó,€415€U.S.Ð à Ð651,€677-78€(1974);€òòLarsonóó€v.€òòUnited€Statesóó,€274€F.3d€643,€648€(1stÐ  p ÐCir.€2001)€(per€curiam);€òòPaul€N.€Howard€Co.óó€v.€òòP.R.€Aqueduct€&Ð °  ÐSewer€Auth.óó,€744€F.2d€880,€886€(1st€Cir.€1984).€€This€venerableÐ @" Ðline€of€cases€cannot€be€reconciled€with€the€individual€appellants'Ð Ð $ Ðreasoning,€under€which€a€state€would€waive€its€immunity€by€doingÐ `"°& Ðnothing€more€than€filing€an€answer€to€a€complaint€and€conductingÐ ð#@( Ðdiscovery.€€The€Supreme€Court€gave€no€indication€that€its€decisionÐ €%Ð * Ðin€òòLapidesóó€would€upset€òòóósuch€established€precedent.€€And€as€aÐ '`", Ðpractical€matter,€the€individual€appellants'€approach€to€waiver€isÐ  (ð#. Ðsimply€untenable,€as€it€encourages€states€to€assert€their€immunityÐ 0*€%0 Ðby€means€of€extra„judicial€"self€help,"€rather€than€through€theÐ À+'2 Ðjudicial€channels€that€have€been€established€by€years€of€settledÐ ° Ðcaselaw.€€We€therefore€decline€to€adopt€the€individual€appellants'Ð @ Ðreasoning.Ð Ð  Ðà ` àThere€is,€however,€another€reading€of€òòLapidesó󀄄€one€thatÐ ` ° Ðis€not€so€expansive€as€the€individual€appellants'€approach,€butÐ ð @ Ðexpansive€nonetheless€„„€that€might€also€be€implicated€here.€€OneÐ € Ð  Ðcould€argue€that€the€state,€by€invoking€the€federal€jurisdiction€ofÐ `  Ðthe€district€court€in€a€nonstatutory€review€action,€thereby€waivedÐ  ð  Ðits€claimed€immunity€in€the€administrative€proceedings.€€òòSeeóóÐ 0€  ÐòòLapidesóó,€122€S.€Ct.€at€1644€("[T]he€Court€has€made€clear€in€generalÐ À Ðthat€'where€a€State€voluntarily€becomes€a€party€to€a€cause€andÐ P  Ðsubmits€its€rights€for€judicial€determination,€it€will€be€boundÐ à0 Ðthereby€and€cannot€escape€the€result€of€its€own€voluntary€act€byÐ pÀ Ðinvoking€the€prohibitions€of€the€Eleventh€Amendment.'")€(quoting€Ð P ÐòòGunteróó€v.€òòAtl.€Coast€Line€R.R.€Co.óó,€200€U.S.€273,€284€(1906)).Ð à Ðà ` àAlthough€it€is€something€of€a€close€question,€we€do€notÐ  p Ðread€òòLapidesóó€to€effect€a€waiver€of€Rhode€Island's€immunity€in€thisÐ °  Ðcase.€€We€discern€several€critical€distinctions€between€theÐ @" Ðsituation€presented€here€and€the€one€presented€to€the€Supreme€CourtÐ Ð $ Ðin€òòLapidesóó.€€To€begin€with,€the€state€entity€in€òòLapidesóó€hadÐ `"°& Ð"explicitly€waived€immunity€from€state-court€proceedings"€on€theÐ ð#@( Ðsame€claims€in€respect€to€which€it€then€sought€immunity€protectionÐ €%Ð * Ðin€federal€court.€€122€S.€Ct.€at€1643.€€It€is€reasonably€apparentÐ '`", Ðthat€the€Supreme€Court€should€be€troubled€by€such€an€attempt€toÐ  (ð#. Ðregain,€by€a€change€in€forum,€litigation€advantage€that€the€stateÐ 0*€%0 Ðhas€already€renounced€by€a€general€statute.€€òòSeeóó€òòLapidesóó€v.€òòBd.€ofÐ À+'2 ÐRegents€of€Univ.€Sys.€of€Ga.óó,€251€F.3d€1372,€1375€n.2€(11th€Cir.Ð ° Ð2001)€(noting€Georgia's€statutory€waiver€with€respect€to€the€stateÐ @ Ðtort€claims€in€state€court),€òòrev'dóó,€122€S.€Ct.€1640€(2002).€€RhodeÐ Ð  ÐIsland,€by€contrast,€was€undoubtably€entitled€to€immunity€when€theÐ ` ° Ðproceedings€were€first€brought€before€the€ALJ.€€òòSeeóó€òòSCSPAóó,€122€S.Ð ð @ ÐCt.€at€1879.€€And,€because€we€reject€the€individual€appellants'Ð € Ð  Ðargument€that€Rhode€Island€had€waived€immunity€by€its€conduct€inÐ `  Ðthe€administrative€proceeding,€we€consequently€discern€no€attemptÐ  ð  Ðby€the€state€to€reverse€its€waiver€by€a€change€in€forum.€€Rather,Ð 0€  ÐRhode€Island€has€consistently€asserted€its€sovereign€immunity,€bothÐ À Ðhere€and€in€the€administrative€proceeding.Ð P  Ðà ` àSecond,€Rhode€Island€invoked€the€aid€of€the€federalÐ à0 Ðcourts€in€an€entirely€new€and€different€proceeding€than€the€one€inÐ pÀ Ðwhich€it€sought€immunity.€€The€removal€of€the€state„court€action€inÐ P ÐòòLapidesóó€was€merely€a€continuation€of€the€same€proceeding€in€aÐ à Ðdifferent€forum.Ð  p Ðà ` àThird,€€Rhode€Island€brought€its€claim€in€federal€courtÐ °  Ðfor€the€sole€and€exclusive€purpose€of€obtaining€an€immunityÐ @" Ðdetermination€for€the€underlying€whistleblower€claims€that€remainedÐ Ð $ Ðpending€before€the€administrative€agency.€€In€òòLapidesóó,€however,€theÐ `"°& Ðstate€entity€moved€the€parties'€entire€dispute€to€federal€court€forÐ ð#@( Ða€determination€on€all€of€the€claims€at€issue.Ð €%Ð * Ðà ` àWe€find€these€distinguishing€characteristics,€takenÐ '`", Ðtogether,€to€place€this€case€outside€the€reach€of€òòLapidesóó.€€FindingÐ  (ð#. Ðwaiver€here€would€not€advance€the€policies€that€ordinarily€motivateÐ 0*€%0 Ðthe€rule.€€"In€large€part€the€rule€governing€voluntary€invocationsÐ À+'2 Ðof€federal€jurisdiction€has€rested€upon€the€problems€ofÐ ° Ðinconsistency€and€unfairness€that€a€contrary€rule€of€law€wouldÐ @ Ðcreate."€€òòLapidesóó,€122€S.€Ct.€at€1645.€€In€this€case,€the€stateÐ Ð  Ðinvoked€the€district€court's€aid,€not€to€obtain€an€unseemlyÐ ` ° Ðlitigation€advantage,€but€to€clarify€its€entitlement€to€sovereignÐ ð @ Ðimmunity€where€the€agency's€rules€provided€no€means€for€doing€so.Ð € Ð  ÐThus,€if€consistency€and€fairness€are€our€guideposts,€suchÐ `  Ðconsiderations€point€away€from€finding€waiver.Ð  ð  Ðà ` àIt€would€be€a€great€irony€for€us€to€hold€that€a€stateÐ 0€  Ðwaives€its€sovereign€immunity€solely€by€seeking€judicial€review€ofÐ À Ðan€agency's€adverse€(and€incorrect)€immunity€determination,Ð P  Ðespecially€since€there€is€"a€strong€presumption€that€CongressÐ à0 Ðintends€judicial€review€of€administrative€action."€€òòBowenóó,€476€U.S.Ð pÀ Ðat€670.€€So€extending€òòLapidesóó€would€have€the€perverse€effect€ofÐ P Ðcompletely€depriving€the€state€of€a€primary€benefit€of€sovereignÐ à Ðimmunity€no€matter€what€course€it€chooses.€€If€the€state€cannotÐ  p Ðseek€an€interim€judicial€determination€of€immunity€without€waivingÐ °  Ðthat€very€immunity,€the€state€is€constrained€to€participate€in€theÐ @" Ðproceedings€all€the€way€to€their€termination.€€While€the€stateÐ Ð $ Ðmight€be€able€to€assert€its€immunity€upon€judicial€review€of€theÐ `"°& Ðagency's€final€order,€by€that€time€the€protections€of€sovereignÐ ð#@( Ðimmunity€will€have€been€reduced€to€a€mere€defense€from€liability.€Ð €%Ð * ÐòòSeeóó€òòP.R.€Aqueduct€&€Sewer€Auth.óó,€506€U.S.€at€145€("[T]he€value€toÐ '`", Ðthe€States€of€their€[sovereign]€immunity€.€.€.€is€for€the€most€partÐ  (ð#. Ðlost€as€litigation€proceeds€past€motion€practice.");€òòaccordóó€òòSCSPAóó,Ð 0*€%0 Ð122€S.€Ct.€at€1877.€€To€be€sure,€we€have€observed€that€litigationÐ À+'2 Ðmay€sometimes€present€the€state€with€a€difficult€choice€as€toÐ ° Ðwhether€immunity€should€be€waived.€€òòSeeóó€òòWJM,€Inc.óó€v.€òòMass.€Dep't€ofÐ @ ÐPub.€Welfareóó,€840€F.2d€996,€1004„05€(1st€Cir.€1988)€("[A]nÐ Ð  Ðeffective€waiver€[of€sovereign€immunity]€.€.€.€may€occur€even€whenÐ ` ° Ðthe€waiving€party€is€between€a€rock€and€a€hard€place.")€(citationsÐ ð @ Ðomitted).€€But€the€waiver€doctrine€still€requires€the€state€to€beÐ € Ð  Ðable€to€make€òòsomeóó€choice,€and€using€òòLapidesóó€to€deprive€the€state€ofÐ `  Ðits€immunity€in€this€case€would€allow€the€state€no€choice€at€all.Ð  ð  Ðà ` àFinally,€waiver€occasioned€by€the€state's€litigationÐ 0€  Ðconduct€„„€a€principle€that€was€well€established€in€this€circuitÐ À Ðprior€to€the€Supreme€Court's€decision€in€òòLapidesóó׃e×Ý ƒÃÝòòÚ  Ú7Ú  ÚóóÝ  Ý×  ×€„„€was€not€raisedÐ P  Ðby€any€of€the€appellants€before€the€district€court€or€before€thisÐ à0 ÐCourt.€€Claims€of€waiver€of€immunity€are€like€any€other€legalÐ pÀ Ðargument€and€may€themselves€be€waived€or€forfeited€if€notÐ P Ðseasonably€asserted.€€òòSeeóó€òòIn€re€Gosselinóó,€276€F.3d€70,€72€(1st€Cir.Ð à Ð2002)€(holding€that€litigant's€argument€that€a€state€waived€itsÐ  p ÐEleventh€Amendment€immunity€was€not€timely€raised);€òòsee€alsoóóÐ °  ÐòòMartinezóó€v.€òòTex.€Dep't€of€Criminal€Justiceóó,€No.€00„51135,€2002€WLÐ @" Ð1721803,€at€*6€(5th€Cir.€July€25,€2002)€(holding€that€litigantÐ Ð $ Ðforfeited€any€claim€to€òòLapidesóó„type€waiver€by€failing€to€raise€theÐ `"°& Ðissue€below).€€We€therefore€find€no€waiver€of€the€state's€immunity.Ð ð#@( Ðà ` àà ¨ àò òb.€€Congressional€abrogationó óÐ ° Ðà ` àA€state's€sovereign€immunity€may€be€abrogated€byÐ à Ðcongressional€enactment,€òòAldenóó,€527€U.S.€at€756,€€provided€thatÐ  p ÐCongress€expresses€its€unequivocal€intention€to€do€so€and€actsÐ °  Ðpursuant€to€a€valid€grant€of€constitutional€authority.€€òòLaroóó€v.€òòNewÐ @  ÐHampshireóó,€259€F.3d€1,€5€(1st€Cir.€2001);€òòsee€alsoóó€òòBd.€of€Trs.€ofÐ Ð   Ðthe€Univ.€of€Ala.óó€v.€òòGarrettóó,€531€U.S.€356,€363€(2001).€€WhileÐ `°  ÐCongress€may€not€base€its€abrogation€of€immunity€upon€the€powersÐ ð@  Ðenumerated€in€Article€I,€it€may€subject€non„consenting€states€toÐ €Ð  Ðsuit€when€legislating€pursuant€to€a€valid€exercise€of€power€underÐ ` ÐSection€5€of€the€Fourteenth€Amendment.׃'×Ý ƒÃÝòòÚ  Ú8Ú  ÚóóÝ  Ý×  ×€€òòLaroóó,€259€F.3d€at€5;€òòseeÐ  ð Ðalsoóó€òòGarrettóó,€531€U.S.€at€363„64.Ð 0€ Ðà ` àThe€individual€appellants€argue€that€Rhode€Island'sÐ À Ðimmunity€from€suit€has€been€abrogated€because€the€whistleblowerÐ P  Ðprovisions€of€the€SWDA€were€enacted€pursuant€to€Section€5.€€Such€anÐ à0 Ðabrogation€analysis€is€incomplete.€€Certainly,€the€individualÐ pÀ Ðappellants€have€a€colorable€argument€that€the€SWDA's€whistleblowerÐ P  Ðprovisions€were€enacted€to€safeguard€First€Amendment€rights€thatÐ à" Ðhave€long€been€made€applicable€to€states€through€the€FourteenthÐ ° ÐAmendment.€€òòSeeóó€òòPickeringóó€v.€òòBd.€of€Educ.óó,€391€U.S.€563,€574„75Ð @ Ð(1968)€(holding€that€the€First€and€Fourteenth€Amendments€protectÐ Ð  Ðthe€right€of€public€employees€to€speak€on€matters€of€publicÐ ` ° Ðconcern).€€But€in€order€to€determine€whether€a€federal€statuteÐ ð @ Ðproperly€exposes€states€to€suits€by€individuals,€we€must€also€applyÐ € Ð  Ða€"simple€but€stringent€test:€Congress€may€abrogate€the€States'Ð `  Ðconstitutionally€secured€immunity€from€suit€in€federal€court€onlyÐ  ð  Ðby€making€its€intention€unmistakably€clear€in€the€language€of€theÐ 0€  Ðstatute."€€òòKimelóó€v.€òòFla.€Bd.€of€Regentsóó,€528€U.S.€62,€73€(2000)Ð À Ð(citations€and€quotation€marks€omitted).€€On€this€account,€we€findÐ P  Ðthe€individual€appellants'€argument€wanting.Ð à0 Ðà ` àThe€individual€appellants€point€to€nothing€in€the€ActÐ pÀ Ðindicating€that€Congress€clearly€expressed€an€intention€to€abrogateÐ P Ðthe€states'€immunity.€€Nor,€in€reviewing€the€language€of€the€SWDAÐ à Ðourselves,€do€we€find€any€provision€of€the€Act€that€remotelyÐ  p Ðpurports€to€abrogate€the€states'€immunity.€€The€only€provision€ofÐ °  Ðthe€Act€addressing€the€question€of€sovereign€immunity€mandates€thatÐ @" Ðcitizen€civil€suits€under€42€U.S.C.€ðð€6972€may€enforce€the€Act'sÐ Ð $ Ðsubstantive€provisions€only€"to€the€extent€permitted€by€theÐ `"°& Ðeleventh€amendment€to€the€Constitution."€€òòId.óó€ðð€6972(a)(1)(A).€€IfÐ ð#@( Ðanything,€this€section€indicates€that€Congress€had€no€intention€toÐ €%Ð * Ðdisturb€the€states'€traditional€immunity€from€suit.€€We€thereforeÐ '`", Ðfind€no€abrogation.׃/×Ý ƒÃÝòòÚ  Ú9Ú  ÚóóÝ  Ý×  ×Ð  (ð#. Ðà ` àà ¨ àò òd.€€òòEx€parte€Youngóó€exceptionó óÐ ° Ðà ` àLastly,€the€appellants€argue€that,€in€accordance€with€theÐ à Ðdoctrine€of€òòEx€parte€Youngóó,€209€U.S.€123€(1908),€there€is€noÐ  p Ðimpediment€to€the€administrative€adjudication€insofar€as€theÐ °  Ðcomplainants€are€seeking€prospective€equitable€relief,€such€asÐ @  Ðreinstatement.€€Under€our€precedent,€"[i]t€is€quite€true€that€òòExÐ Ð   Ðparte€Youngóó€avoids€the€[sovereign€immunity]€defense€whereÐ `°  Ðprospective€injunctive€relief,€not€involving€damages€or€propertyÐ ð@  Ðtransfer,€is€sought€against€named€state€officials€for€a€violationÐ €Ð  Ðof€federal€law."€€òòNeo€Gen€Screening,€Inc.óó€v.€òòNew€England€NewbornÐ ` ÐScreening€Programóó,€187€F.3d€24,€28€(1st€Cir.€1999)€(citing€òòIdahoóó€v.Ð  ð ÐòòCoeur€d'Alene€Tribeóó,€521€U.S.€261,€276„77€(1997)).Ð 0€ Ðà ` àIn€this€case,€the€individual€appellants€contend€that€theyÐ À Ðhave€satisfied€the€òòEx€parte€Youngóó€predicates:€they€named€theirÐ P  Ðmanagers€at€DEM€in€their€administrative€complaints;€and€they€soughtÐ à0 Ðprospective€equitable€relief.€€If€these€conditions€have€truly€beenÐ pÀ Ðmet,€the€complaint€might€not€be€barred€by€sovereign€immunity.׃7x×Ý ƒÃÝòòÚ  Ú10Ú  ÚóóÝ  Ý×  ×€€òòCf.óóÐ P  ÐòòFloridaóó,€133€F.€Supp.€2d€at€1291„92€(allowing€administrativeÐ à" Ðwhistleblower€claims€for€injunctive€relief€to€proceed€againstÐ ° Ðindividuals€named€in€their€official€capacity).€€But€we€cannotÐ @ Ðproperly€assess€the€argument€here€because€the€individualÐ Ð  Ðappellants'€brief€contains€no€sustained€argument€in€support€ofÐ ` ° Ðtheir€claim€and€the€record€provides€nothing€conclusive.׃&×Ý ƒÃÝòòÚ  Ú11Ú  ÚóóÝ  Ý×  ×€€òòSeeóó€òòMass.Ð ð @ ÐSch.€of€Lawóó€v.€òòAm.€Bar.€Ass'nóó,€142€F.3d€26,€43€(1st€Cir.€1998).€€WeÐ € Ð  Ðtherefore€find€that€òòEx€parte€Youngóó€does€not,€in€this€instance,Ð `  Ðcircumvent€the€state's€immunity.Ð  ð  Ðà ` àà ¨ àò òe.€€Role€of€the€federal€governmentó óÐ 0€  Ðà ` à"In€ratifying€the€Constitution,€the€States€consented€toÐ ` Ðsuits€brought€by€.€.€.€the€Federal€Government."€€òòAldenóó,€527€U.S.€atÐ  ð Ð755€(citing€òòPrincipality€of€Monacoóó€v.€òòMississippióó,€292€U.S.€313,Ð 0€ Ð328-29€(1934)).€€Thus,€sovereign€immunity€is€no€barrier€to€a€suitÐ À Ðinitiated€by€the€United€States,€even€where€the€relief€sought€isÐ P  Ðmonetary€in€nature.€€òòSeminole€Tribe€of€Fla.óó€v.€òòFloridaóó,€517€U.S.Ð à0 Ð44,€71€n.14€(1996);€òòsee€alsoóó€òòUnited€Statesóó€v.€òòTexasóó,€143€U.S.€621,Ð pÀ Ð644„45€(1892)€(finding€the€power€of€the€federal€government€to€bringÐ P  Ðsuit€against€states€necessary€to€"the€permanence€of€the€Union").Ð à" Ðà ` àThe€individual€appellants€argue€first€that€the€ARB,€theÐ  !p$ Ðbody€that€directly€reviews€the€decision€of€the€ALJ,€exercisesÐ °"& Ðsufficient€political€responsibility€to€negate€Rhode€Island'sÐ @$( Ðimmunity.€€In€support€of€this€contention,€they€point€to€the€factÐ Ð% !* Ðthat€the€ARB's€constituent€members€are€each€appointed€by€theÐ ° ÐSecretary€of€Labor,€an€executive€branch€official.Ð @ Ðà ` àWe€find€the€mere€nature€of€the€ARB€members'€appointmentÐ Ð  Ðinsufficient€to€defeat€sovereign€immunity.€€The€governingÐ ` ° Ðregulations€clearly€establish€that€the€ARB€reviews€the€decision€ofÐ ð @ Ðthe€ALJ€only€for€the€limited€purpose€of€determining€whether€aÐ € Ð  Ðviolation€of€the€law€occurred.€€29€C.F.R.€ðð€24.8(d)(1).€€Once€theÐ `  ÐARB€makes€this€determination,€its€course€of€action€is€limited:€ifÐ  ð  Ðthe€violation€occurred,€the€ARB€must€order€appropriate€relief,€òòid.óóÐ 0€  Ððð€24.8(d)(1)€&€(2);€if€no€violation€occurred,€it€must€issue€anÐ À Ðorder€denying€the€complaint,€òòid.óó€ðð€24.8(e).€€There€is€nothing€inÐ P  Ðthe€role€defined€for€the€ARB€to€suggest€that€its€members€may€weighÐ à0 Ðthe€greater€policy€implications€of€affirming€the€ALJ's€decision€orÐ pÀ Ðdenying€the€complaint.€€Thus,€the€presence€of€the€ARB€does€notÐ P Ðaffect€the€sovereign€immunity€calculus.Ð à Ðà ` àIndividual€appellants€next€claim€that€the€Secretary,Ð  p Ðrather€than€the€individual€complainant,€is€the€"true"€plaintiff€inÐ °  Ðany€administrative€proceeding€under€29€C.F.R.€part€24.€€Thus,€theyÐ @" Ðcontend€that€Rhode€Island's€sovereign€immunity€is€inapplicableÐ Ð $ Ðbecause€the€whistleblower€claim€proceedings€are€subject€to€the€Ð `"°& Ð"exercise€of€political€responsibility€[by€the€federal€government]Ð ð#@( Ðfor€each€suit€prosecuted€against€a€State,€a€control€which€is€absentÐ €%Ð * Ðfrom€a€broad€delegation€to€private€persons€to€sue€nonconsentingÐ '`", ÐStates."€€òòAldenóó,€527€U.S.€at€756.Ð  (ð#. Ðà ` àIt€is€obvious€from€the€regulatory€scheme€and€governingÐ 0*€%0 ÐAPA€provisions€that€the€administrative€adjudication€is€not€directedÐ À+'2 Ðor€prosecuted€by€the€Secretary.€€Instead,€the€individualÐ ° Ðcomplainant€tries€a€case€against€the€employer,€and€the€SecretaryÐ @ Ð(through€the€ALJ)€acts€as€the€neutral€arbiter€of€law€and€fact.€€òòSeeóóÐ Ð  ÐòòButzóó€v.€òòEconomouóó,€438€U.S.€478,€513€(1978)€("[T]he€[ALJ]€exercisesÐ ` ° Ðhis€independent€judgment€on€the€evidence€before€him,€free€fromÐ ð @ Ðpressures€by€.€.€.€other€officials€within€the€agency.").€€There€isÐ € Ð  Ðsimply€no€basis€for€construing€the€privately„prosecutedÐ `  Ðwhistleblower€claims€at€issue€here€as€implicating€the€exercise€of€Ð  ð  Ðpolitical€responsibility€by€the€federal€government.׃|×Ý ƒÃÝòòÚ  Ú12Ú  ÚóóÝ  Ý×  ×Ð 0€  Ðà ` àWe€pause,€however,€to€make€one€important€observation.€Ð À ÐThe€governing€regulations€provide€that€the€Secretary€may,€at€anyÐ P  Ðtime,€intervene€in€the€proceedings€before€the€ALJ€as€a€party€orÐ à0 Ðamicus.€€29€C.F.R.€ðð24.6(f)(1).€€Generally€speaking,€if€the€UnitedÐ pÀ ÐStates€joins€a€suit€after€it€has€been€initiated€by€otherwise-barredÐ P Ðprivate€parties€and€seeks€the€same€relief€as€the€private€parties,Ð à Ðthis€generally€cures€any€Eleventh€Amendment€or€sovereign€immunityÐ  p Ðdefect,€and€the€private€parties€may€continue€to€participate€in€theÐ °  Ðsuit.€€òòSeeóó€òòMille€Lacs€Band€of€Chippewa€Indiansóó€v.€òòMinnesotaóó,€124Ð @" ÐF.3d€904,€913€(8th€Cir.€1997),€òòaff'dóó,€526€U.S.€172€(1999);€òòSenecaÐ Ð $ ÐNation€of€Indiansóó€v.€òòNew€Yorkóó,€178€F.3d€95,€97€(2d€Cir.€1999)€(perÐ `"°& Ðcuriam).€€Thus,€our€holding€does€not€preclude€the€Secretary€fromÐ ° Ðintervening€in€the€enjoined€proceedings€and€removing€the€sovereignÐ @ Ðimmunity€bar.€€òòSeeóó€òòOhio€Envtl.€Prot.€Agencyóó,€121€F.€Supp.€2d€atÐ Ð  Ð1167.€€To€the€extent€the€district€court's€injunction€does€notÐ ` ° Ðpermit€the€Secretary€to€take€such€action,€we€modify€the€injunctionÐ ð @ Ðaccordingly.׃`×Ý ƒÃÝòòÚ  Ú13Ú  ÚóóÝ  Ý×  ×Ð € Ð  Ðà ` àNotwithstanding€this€single€caveat,€we€conclude€that€theÐ `  Ðdistrict€court€was€correct€to€hold€that€Rhode€Island€hasÐ  ð  Ðdemonstrated€a€likelihood€of€success€on€the€merits.€€The€states'Ð 0€  Ðimmunity€from€suit€embedded€in€the€structure€of€the€ConstitutionÐ À Ðextends€to€adversary€administrative€proceedings€that€are€prosecutedÐ P  Ðagainst€an€unconsenting€state€by€a€private€party.€€òòSeeóó€òòSCSPAóó,€122Ð à0 ÐS.€Ct.€at€1879.€€And€in€this€case,€the€appellants€have€advanced€noÐ pÀ Ðarguments€that€persuade€us€that€a€recognized€exception€to€theÐ P Ðimmunity€doctrine€is€applicable.Ð à Ðà ` àò ò2.€€Other€preliminary€injunction€factorsó óÐ  p Ðà ` àThe€individual€appellants€challenge€the€district€court'sÐ P  Ðrulings€on€each€of€the€remaining€preliminary€injunction€factors.€Ð à" ÐBecause€we€conclude€that€the€district€court€did€not€abuse€itsÐ  !p$ Ðdiscretion€in€evaluating€any€of€the€factors,€we€address€theseÐ °"& Ðarguments€only€briefly.Ð @$( Ðà ` àThe€appellants€first€argue€that€the€state€failed€toÐ Ð% !* Ðdemonstrate€that€it€would€suffer€irreparable€harm€in€the€absence€ofÐ `'°", Ðan€injunction.€€Such€an€argument€downplays€a€fundamental€aspect€ofÐ ° Ðthe€state's€sovereign€immunity.€€As€we€have€already€observed,€theÐ @ Ðstate's€immunity€is€not€merely€a€defense€from€liability;€it€is€aÐ Ð  Ðsafeguard€against€being€subjected€to€"the€coercive€process€ofÐ ` ° Ðjudicial€tribunals€at€the€instance€of€private€parties."€€òòIn€reÐ ð @ ÐAyersóó,€123€U.S.€at€505.€€If€a€state€cannot€assert€its€immunity€inÐ € Ð  Ðthe€earliest€stages€of€the€adjudication,€much€of€the€benefitÐ `  Ðconferred€by€that€immunity€is€irretrievably€lost.€€òòP.R.€Aqueduct€&Ð  ð  ÐSewer€Auth.óó,€506€U.S.€at€145.Ð 0€  Ðà ` àAs€for€the€balance€of€hardships,€the€individualÐ À Ðappellants€contend€that€their€interests€in€gaining€relief€on€theirÐ P  Ðwhistleblower€claims€outweigh€the€state's€sovereign€interests.€Ð à0 ÐAlthough€we€sympathize€greatly€with€the€appellants'€stymied€effortsÐ pÀ Ðto€vindicate€their€rights,€the€Supreme€Court€has€demonstrated€onÐ P Ðseveral€occasions€that€employees'€federal€statutory€rights€may,€inÐ à Ðsome€circumstances,€be€subordinated€to€the€sovereign€interests€ofÐ  p Ðthe€states.€€òòSeeóó€òòGarrettóó,€531€U.S.€at€360€(holding€that€sovereignÐ °  Ðimmunity€bars€state€employees'€claims€under€Title€I€of€theÐ @" ÐAmericans€with€Disabilities€Act,€42€U.S.C.€ðððð€12111-12117);€òòKimelóó,Ð Ð $ Ð528€U.S.€at€67€(same€with€regard€to€claims€under€the€AgeÐ `"°& ÐDiscrimination€in€Employment€Act,€29€U.S.C.€ðððð€621„634);€òòAldenóó,€527Ð ð#@( ÐU.S.€at€712€(same€with€regard€to€claims€under€the€Fair€LaborÐ €%Ð * ÐStandards€Act,€29€U.S.C.€ðððð€201„219).Ð '`", Ðà ` àLastly,€the€individual€appellants€argue€that€the€issuanceÐ  (ð#. Ðof€an€injunction€runs€counter€to€the€public€interest€in€protectingÐ 0*€%0 Ðwhistleblowers€and€promoting€clean€government.€€The€district€courtÐ À+'2 Ðtook€these€important€interests€into€account,€balanced€them€againstÐ ° Ðthe€competing€interests€of€federalism,€and€concluded€that€theÐ @ Ðissuance€of€the€injunction€did€not€offend€the€overall€publicÐ Ð  Ðinterest.€€We€discern€no€abuse€of€discretion€in€the€court'sÐ ` ° Ðconclusion.Ð ð @ Ðà@üü(ìàò òIII.ó óˆÐ € Ð  Ðà ` àThe€order€of€the€district€court€enjoining€theÐ `°  Ðadministrative€proceedings€before€the€Department€of€Labor€isÐ ð@  Ðòòò òmodifiedó óóó€to€allow€the€Secretary€of€Labor,€if€she€so€chooses,€toÐ €Ð  Ðintervene€in€the€proceedings€before€the€ALJ,€thereby€curing€anyÐ `° Ðsovereign€immunity€bar.€€In€all€other€respects,€the€districtÐ ð@ Ðcourt's€order€is€òòò òaffirmedó óóó.Ð €Ð Ð