WPCv ']F.%jo']#U綍V !ei} Lf4 2U4ck<^&9ysLܟΟ Afa d[w\8gr BNz{<Da0YyY-ڧv}{K*6Fz}vf֞:(xy3n&RșbfڤLr.ab-|}ݬ"\/>8۴z0.r&N *Vٿ %l 0Dr 0G U: UR87 0o UN nTe N U=F ^ w 4%4 m6EMfOaQUBeU>)g#N^ 0U#bx   1 72 1u 72M B 0c 0 0 0 0 0 0n 0H 0 0C6 0> 0! 0! 0" 0# 0S$ 0% 0% 0@& 0& 0' 0( 0S) 0* 0* 0+ 0m, 1*- 72-?- 0w"33 1`9 729:3: 00Q< 0<< 0< 0>{= 0v=/>/>r@ 0`vA 0`A 0`6B 0`B 0`B 08VC 0C 02`D 0D 0:E 0YE 0_!F 0 F 0jG 0H B*xJ D/J D+J 0J D/L 0L 06}M 0M 0:N 0^N 0<SO 1eOU6OU>*PU*hPPPPPTTTTxUU8T[^pepepepetftftf TiTi`k`k`k`k`k`k`k`k`k`k`k*m*mnn=prprtX(#$  0  ($XXXX<6X9`("Courier NewTT<4 9Z+ Courier New (F:2#;$ !XXXXX        0  (A Z6Times New Roman Regular<6X9`("Courier NewTTXXx6X@DQX@<6X9`(CourierTTXXw6X@QX@#Q 9Z+.Courier New Regular,|0s v0 y File3|x+UTABLE A<6X9`(*Courier 12pt10cpi  : ' Turner0Turner .   \( 9Z+&Courier Regular  #;$X0XXX      8    _ ` Atthisstage,the_SLA_,ratherthanthestateitself,was  therespondent,butwerefertothe_SLA_Ԁas"thestate"forclarity  andconvenience.HP LaserJet 5/5M - Standard,,,,0L:\JUDGES\Boudin\TEMPLATE\OPINIONS\ALDRICH.WPT*+ (_2623  ..- -  #;$X0XXX      5    _ ` TheBlindVendorsnotedthatthestatewasfreetoask  thatanydamagesclaiminstatecourtbecombinedwiththe  equitableclaiminfederalcourt,ifitwantedallissuescombined.  0}CEKQW]cioAutoList1A.1.A.A.A.A.A.A.#A.3#37=CIQYag1.a.i.(1)(a)(i)1)a)%i) d(;3$2#  0  .3  0  *G+M (_25   /%` ` hp x /23  ..  5+ ` hp x 5  *D+M (_24   ," hp x ,23  ..  5+ ` hp x 5  *A+M (_23  ` ) hp x )23  ..  5+ ` hp x 5  *>+M (_22   &hhp x &23  ..  5+ ` hp x 5  *;+M (_21   #p x #23  ..  5+ ` hp x 5  *8+M (_20  h  p x 23  ..  5+ ` hp x 5  *5+M (_19   pp x 23  ..  5+ ` hp x 5  *2+M (_18    x 23  ..  5+ ` hp x 5  * (_1723  Ԁ *GM (_16   /%` ` hp x /23  Ԁ  5+ ` hp x 5  *DM (_15   ," hp x ,23  Ԁ  5+ ` hp x 5  *AM (_14  ` ) hp x )23  Ԁ  5+ ` hp x 5  *>M (_13   &hhp x &23  Ԁ  5+ ` hp x 5  *;M (_12   #p x #23  Ԁ  5+ ` hp x 5  *8M (_11  h  p x 23  Ԁ  5+ ` hp x 5  *5M (_10   pp x 23  Ԁ  5+ ` hp x 5  (2M &_9    x 23  Ԁ  5+ ` hp x 5  ( &_823  (GM &_7   /%` ` hp x /23   5+ ` hp x 5  (DM &_6   ," hp x ,23   5+ ` hp x 5  (AM &_5  ` ) hp x )23   5+ ` hp x 5  (>M &_4   &hhp x &23   5+ ` hp x 5  (;M &_3   #p x #23   5+ ` hp x 5  (8M &_2  h  p x 23   5+ ` hp x 5  (5M &_1   pp x 23   5+ ` hp x 5  &2M $_    x 23   5+ ` hp x 5  (EhCEKQW]cioAutoList21.1.1.1.1.1.1.1.D1. 5 #;$X0XXX      18    _ `  X0XXX0TheBlindVendorsdonotmentionR.I.Dep'tof_Envtl_.  _Mgmt_.v.UnitedStates,304U.S.F.3d31(1stCir.2002),intheir  brief.ButtheydoarguethatFed.Mar._Comm'n_v.S.C.StatePort \ Auth.,535U.S.743(2002),andbyimplicationR.I._Dep't_,differs 2 fromthecaseatbarbecauseitinvolvedanadministrative X adjudicationofacomplaintagainsta"nonconsentingstate." . Here,theyargue,NewHampshireconsentedtoadministrative   adjudicationbecauseitsoughtandobtaineddismissalofthe1998   suitonthegroundthatRSgrievanceproceduresshouldapply.We `  disagreeforthereasonsstatedearlierandaddthatitwasnotthe 6   statebuttheBlindVendorsthatfiledacomplaintbeforethe  \  federaladministrativetribunal.#X0XX X0#(O;$0  2#  a  .3  0` (#(#  #;$X0XXX      2    _ ` WequoteagainfromTenn.Dep'tofHumanServs.:  0  InordertoresolvedisputesarisingundertheAct,both \ administrativeandjudicialremediesareavailablefor 2 licensedblindvendors.TheSecretaryofEducationmay X decertifyastatelicensingagencythatrefusesto . cooperatewiththeSecretary.34C.F.R.395.17.In   allothersituations,theSecretarymustrelyonablind   vendortofileacomplaintinordertoenforcetheAct's `  substantiveprovisions.Ifablindvendorhasa 6   complaintregardingthestate'soperationoftheprogram,  \  heorshemayrequestanevidentiaryhearingbeforethe  2  statelicensingagencyand,ifdissatisfiedwiththe   outcomeofthehearing,mayasktheSecretarytoconvene   anarbitrationpaneltoresolvethedispute.20U.S.C. d  107d1(a),107d2(b)(1).Anarbitrationpanel's :  decisionissubjecttoreviewasafinalagencyaction. `  20U.S.C.107d1(a).6   979F.2dat1164.(UhCEKQW]cioAutoList31.1.1.1.1.1.1.1.I1.R-S Act lang  #;$X0XXX      7    _ ` TheHearingOfficer'srulingthat111(b)appliesonly  onfederallandispuzzling.Thestatenevercontestedthat  111(b)appliedtostateownedrestareas;itarguedonlythatthe \ RSActdidnotapplytosuchrestareasandthatthepriority 2 requiredby111(b)wasprovidedhere.0.Normal<:Definition T<AA:Definition L , 5+ ` hp x 5  5+ ` hp x 586Definition(''&H1        #;$X0XXX      15    _ ` ThedoctrinewasarticulatedinFordMotorCo.v.Dep't  ofTreasuryofInd.,323U.S.459,467(1945),which_!!Lapides_!!  expresslyoverruled.See_!!Lapides_!!,535U.S.at623. h #;$X0XXX      20    _ ` DelawareDep'twasdecidedin1985,withoutforeknowledge  oftheSupremeCourt'slaterarticulationoftestsforwaiverof  EleventhAmendmentimmunity.(&H2  (&H3  (&H4 XXX (&H5  (&H6  20Address8MM6Blockquote , , 5+ ` hp x 5   5+ ` hp x 5,*CITE,dl*CODEKp<6X9`(Courier NewKSq\  `&Times New RomanS42Emphasis64Hyperlink    <:FollowedHype    4go2Keyboard Kp<6X9`(Courier NewKSq\  `&Times New RomanS <:Preformatted/%  ,Kk %#/Kp<6X9`(Courier NewKSq\  `&Times New RomanS/%  ,Kk %#/<:zBottom of 7e(X7  ?r%2A`Arial?  Sq\  `&Times New RomanS7f(X7&  d dd)1dxd'dxd<:zTop of For7h(X7  ?r%2A`Arial?  Sq\  `&Times New RomanS7f(X7d)2dxd0KS.SampleKp<6X9`(Courier NewKSq\  `&Times New RomanS0.Strong 8dl6TypewriterKp<6X9`(Courier NewKSq\  `&Times New RomanS42Variable: 8HTML MarkupB      2 0CommentB  13456789 35;AGMSY_11.1.1.1.1.1.1.1.<6X9`(Courier New\  `&Times New Roman%2A`Arial x #;$X0XXX      19    _ ` TheSixthCircuitheldthat(1)theEleventhAmendment  didnotbarthearbitrationpanelfromawardingdamagesbecausethe  AmendmentappliedonlyinArticleIIIproceedings,but(2)the \ Amendmentdidpreventasubsequentattempttocollectthe 2 arbitrationawardinfederalcourt.Tenn.Dep'tHum._Servs_., X0XXX0979 X F.2dat116768#X0XX X0E#.Ourfocusisonthecourt'ssecondholding.The . reasoningbehindcourt'sfirstholdinghassincebeenoverruledin   Fed.Mar.Comm'n,535U.S.at76061.  #;$X0XXX      4    _ ` Atthisstage,thesuitwasbroughtonlybytheNew  HampshireCommitteeofBlindVendors;thenineindividualmembers  hadnotyetjoined.Forclarityandconvenience,however,werefer \ totheCommitteealoneastheBlindVendors. n #;$X0XXX      17    _ ` Ofcourse,exhaustionwouldnotbenecessaryifthe  districtcourtin1998hadbeenwronginfindingthatRSgrievance  proceduresappliedtoan_!!STA_!!ԀActclaim.Inthatcase,theBlind \ Vendorscouldarguethat,haditnotbeenforthestate'sarguments 2 initsmotiontodismiss,theBlindVendorscouldhaveproceeded X directlytothequestionwhetherthereisacauseofaction, . outsideoftheRSAct,forclaimsunder111(b),andifso,would   haveobtainedinjunctivereliefin1998ifsuccessfulonthe   merits.TheBlindVendorscouldthusarguethatthestate'smotion `  todismisscauseddelay.But,inthatcase,anysuchdelaywould 6   havebeencausedbythestate'surgingthecourttoapplyRS  \  grievanceprocedures,notitsfailuretoraiseEleventhAmendment  2  immunity.And,inanyevent,forreasonsexplainedlater,we   D concludethatRSgrievanceproceduresareproperlyappliedto  111(b)claims. . #;$X0XXX      3    _ ` Asonecourthasnoted,107d1oftheRSAct  0  setsoutadualschemeofremedies.Subsection(a)givesthe \ blindlicenseeadirectactionagainstthestatelicensing 2 agency.Subsection(b),however,givestheblindlicensee X nothing;rather,itgivesthestateagencyauthoritytobring . acomplaintagainstafederalentitycontrollingpropertyon   whichvendingfacilitiesarelocated. (#(# Ga.Dep'tofHumanRes.v.Nash,915F.2d1482,1490(11thCir. 6   1990).  #;$X0XXX      16    _ ` Theremaybeanotherpossiblebasisforfindingwaiverof  immunitybylitigationconduct.WhilestatesmayassertEleventh  Amendmentimmunityfromsuitbyprivatepartiesinbothstateand \ federalcourts,thereisawellrecognizedexceptiontoimmunity 2 setforthinExparteYoung,209U.S.123(1908),whichallowsthe X awardofprospectiveequitablereliefagainststateofficers.The . vitalityoftheExparteYoungdoctrineisdemonstratedbythe   SupremeCourt'srecentopinionin_##Verizon_##ԀMd.,Inc.v.Pub.Serv.   _##Comm'n_##ԀofMd.,535U.S.635,64546(2002). `    ItistruethattheBlindVendorsherenamedstateagencies 6   ratherthanstateofficersasdefendantsinfederalcourtandin  \  theRSgrievanceprocedures.Nonetheless,thestate(andits  2  agencies),facedwithaclaimforprospectiveequitablerelief   since1998,hasneverraisedtheargumentthatsuchreliefis   availableonlyagainststateofficers.Indeed,thestatemovedto d  substituteitselfasthepartydefendant.Itslitigationconduct :  couldbeviewedas_##estopping_##Ԁanyobjectionthatitmayhavetothe `  applicationoftheExparteYoungexception. #;$X0XXX      6    _ ` Atthispoint,theCommitteewasjoinedbynineofits  individualmembers.  #;$X0XXX      13    _  ` Wenotethatthestateisnominallythepartyinfederal  courtbyitsownchoicetosubstituteitselfastheparty  defendant.SeeGunterv.Atl.CoastLineR.R.Co.,200U.S.273, \ 28487(1906)(statevoluntarilysubmittedtothejurisdictionof 2 thefederalcourtswhenAttorneyGeneralappeared"forandon X behalfoftheState"inanearlier,relatedactionbroughtagainst . stateofficersandnotagainstthestateitself).  #;$X0XXX      1    _ ` TheSTAActwaslaterrenamedtheTransportationEquity  Actforthe21stCentury.Pub.L.No.105178,112Stat.107  (1998).ThepartiesandpapersinthiscaserefertotheActby \ bothnames,butforclarityandconvenience,thisopinionwill 2 refertotheActastheSTAAct.  #;$X0XXX      14    _ `  X0XXX0Infairness,wenotethatAldenv.Mainewasdecidedin  1999,andFederalMaritimeCommissionv.SouthCarolinaStatePorts  Authoritywasnotdecideduntil2002.#X0XX X0#  #;$X0XXX      9    _ ` OnesuitwasbroughtbytheNewHampshireDepartmentof  Education,whiletheotherwasbroughtby_##NHDAS_##,theNewHampshire  DepartmentofTransportation,andtheStateTreasurer.   #;$X0XXX      10    _ ` Inaddition,thestatearguedthat23U.S.C.111(b)  violatestheequalprotectionguaranteesoftheFifthand  FourteenthAmendmentsbecause,thestatesaid,thereisnorational \ basisforgrantingprioritytoblindvendors.Thestatefurther 2 arguedthatthedamagesawardexceededthearbitrationpanel's X statutoryauthoritybecausetherestareaswereallonstateowned . landandatleastonerestareahadbeenbuiltandmaintained   entirelywithstatefunds.Thedistrictcourtrejectedboth   arguments,andthestatehasraisedneitheronappeal,sowedonot `  addressthem. 3 #;$X0XXX      11    _ԀThestatedoesnotcontendthatitscounsellacked  authorityunderstatelawtowaiveimmunity.Thatconsideration  hasnotsurvivedLapidesincasessuchasthis,whereastate \ voluntarilyinvokesfederaljurisdiction.See_!!Lapides_!!v.Bd.of 2 Regents,535U.S.613,62122(2002).  #;$X0XXX      12    _ ` Itistruethatinthe1998federalcourtfilingseeking  dismissalonexhaustiongrounds,thestatedefendantsreservedthe  questionwhetherthefactsofthecasebroughtitwithinthe \ statutoryreachoftheRSAct.Thatisaverydifferentargument. !X0XXX  _TRY,3'X3' Letter 3' Letter3'T ? * !X-XXX0!XX-     =0XXdd=UnitedStatesCourtofAppeals0!  FortheFirstCircuit  $0 X0X $  A') ` dE< ` A      `     h No.031920    h      p     VolumeIofII  K    STATEOFNEWHAMPSHIRE,  U  Plaintiff,Appellant,   @@ NEWHAMPSHIREDEPARTMENTOFADMINISTRATIVESERVICES;STATEOFNEW ]  HAMPSHIREDEPARTMENTOFTRANSPORTATION;NEWHAMPSHIRESTATE 3  TREASURER;STATEOFNEWHAMPSHIREDEPARTMENTOFEDUCATION,  Y  W@XX%Plaintiffs,  @tt)v. a   @@dd DAVIDRAMSEY,JOHN_LOVEDAY_,JOHN_TOOMEY_,_MELINDA_ԀCONRAD,WAYNE  ] ALDRICH,NORMAN_JITRAS_,MICHAELROSSI,JOHN_SCARLOTTO_,and 3 MARTHAYORK,asmembersoftheN.H.CommitteeofBlindVendors;   NEWHAMPSHIRECOMMITTEEOFBLINDVENDORS;  UNITEDSTATESDEPARTMENTOFEDUCATION, e 2@Defendants,Appellees. a A') ` dE<` A   @ APPEALFROMTHEUNITEDSTATESDISTRICTCOURT  @0 0 FORTHEDISTRICTOFNEWHAMPSHIRE x  @[Hon.StevenJ._McAuliffe_,U.S.DistrictJudge] $!t" A') ` dE<"` A " $ @'Before #&   @@((Lynch,CircuitJudge, a% ( Stahl,SeniorCircuitJudge, 7&!) andLipez,CircuitJudge.  ']"* A') ` dE<)` A )$-       NancyJ.Smith,SeniorAssistantAttorneyGeneral,withwhom t*%/ PeterW.Heed,AttorneyGeneral,wasonbrief,forappellant. J+&0   JackB._Middleton_,withwhomAndreaL.Daly,LauraB.Dodge, ,F(2 and_McLane_,Graf,_Raulerson_Ԁ&_Middleton_wereonbrief,forappellee -)3? _#NewHampshireCommitteeofBlindVendors.    MarkB.Stern,Attorney,AppellateStaff,CivilDivision,with \ whomAlisaB.Klein,Attorney,AppellateStaff,CivilDivision, 2 PeterD.Keisler,AssistantAttorneyGeneral,andThomasP. X Colantuono,UnitedStatesAttorney,wereonbrief,forappellee . UnitedStatesDepartmentofEducation.     RobertR.HumphreysonbriefforRandolphSheppardVendorsof `  America,AmericanCounciloftheBlind,andNationalEducational 6   andLegalDefenseServicesfortheBlind,amicicuriae.  \  *'ddd Xdd Xdd X(#(#,( dd ,( dd ,( dd +       SIB   @38105 @SApril29,2004    RHC "  @38105  @ R(B   (  * !   P   80XXdXXd8*,X` XX*!OY ` LYNCH,CircuitJudge .Thedistrictcourtentered  judgmentfortheNewHampshireCommitteeofBlindVendorsandnine x ofitsindividualmembers(collectively,theBlindVendors)andthe $t UnitedStatesDepartmentofEducation(USDOE),largelyaffirminga   federalarbitrationpanelawardagainstNewHampshireof |  compensatorydamagesofapproximately$900,000 aswellas ( x  prospectiveequitablerelief.TheBlindVendors'claimisthatNew @  Hampshiredidnotgiveproper"priority"toblindvendors,as   requiredbyfederallaw,inrunninglucrativevendingmachine H  operationsinrestareasalongfederallyfundedinterstate D highways.NewHampshiregaveothersthoseconcessionsbycontract  inexchangeforapercentageoftheproceeds,whichthestateput L intothestatetreasury.Thedistrictcourtcharacterizedthe H state'sactionsas"stealingfromtheblind."   ` Severalmajorissuesarepresentedinthiscomplexand P difficultcase.ThethresholdissueiswhetherNewHampshire,in L lightofitsEleventhAmendmentimmunity,maybesubjecttoeither   thecompensatorydamagesawardorprospectiveequitablereliefin T!" afederalforum.Thedistrictcourtfoundthestatewaivedany #P$ immunityitmayhavehadbyitslitigationconduct.Weholdthat $& thedistrictcourthadjurisdictiontoaffirmanawardof X&!( prospectiveequitablereliefbecausethestatewaivedanyimmunity (T#* tosuchreliefinafederalforum(a)byitslitigationconductand )%, (b)byjudicialestoppelanditsparticipationintheprogram \+&. establishedbytheRandolphSheppardAct(RSAct),20U.S.C.107  etseq.HavingdeterminedthatEleventhAmendmentimmunity \ presentsnobartoprospectiveequitablereliefhere,weaffirm X suchreliefonthemerits,findingthatthestatehasnotgiven   proper"priority"toblindvendorsasrequiredbyfederallawand `  thataconflictingstatestatuteispreempted.  \   ` Ourviewofthestate'sEleventhAmendmentimmunityfrom   damagesisdifferent.Weholdthatthestatehasnotwaived d  immunityfromdamagesbyitslitigationconduct;wealsoconclude `  that111(b)oftheSurfaceTransportationAssistanceAct(STA   Act),X0XX X0 #  1      ׀23U.S.C.101etseq.,# X0XXX0 #ԀunderwhichtheBlindVendorsseek h relief,doesnotclearlyevidenceanintenttosubjectstatesto d suchdamages.Wevacatethedamagesawardandorderdismissalof  thoseclaims. l @tt) I.3,XX X,X` X3  h    ` Thiscaseisshapedbytwofederalstatutes.7,X` X,XX X 7Thefirst 0 istheRandolphSheppardAct,underwhichthefederalgovernment,   inpartnershipwithconsentingstates,seekstoprovideeconomic 8!" opportunitiestotheblindbygrantingprioritytolicensedblind "4$ vendorsincontractstooperatevendingfacilitiesonfederal $& property.20U.S.C.107(a)(b).TheAct,whichwasfirst <&!( enactedin1936,Pub.L.No.74732,49Stat.1559(1936),provides  that:X0XX X0 \ 3,XX X,X` X30  Inauthorizingtheoperationofvendingfacilitieson X Federalproperty,priorityshallbegiventoblind . personslicensedbyaStateagencyasprovidedinthis   chapter;andtheSecretary,throughtheCommissioner,   shall,afterconsultationwiththeAdministratorof `  GeneralServicesandotherheadsofdepartments, 6   agencies,orinstrumentalitiesoftheUnitedStatesin  \  controlofthemaintenance,operation,andprotectionof  2  Federalproperty,prescriberegulationsdesignedto   assurethat--    0      0  0`   (1)thepriorityunderthissubsectionisgivento :  suchlicensedblindpersons(includingassignment `  ofvendingmachineincomepursuanttosection107d 6 3ofthistitletoachieveandprotectsuch   priority),and` `  0      0  0`   (2)whereverfeasible,oneormorevending > facilitiesareestablishedonallFederalproperty d totheextentthatanysuchfacilityorfacilities : wouldnotadverselyaffecttheinterestsofthe  UnitedStates.` `   K  $$7,X` X,XX X-$720U.S.C.107(b).# X0XXX0## B  ` UndertheRSAct,participatingstates,suchasNew > Hampshire,cangainaccesstofederalpropertytobenefittheirown  blindvendorsbyhavingstateagenciesapplytotheUnitedStates F ! DepartmentofEducationtoparticipateinandadministerthe !B# program.20U.S.C.107b.Intheirapplications,thosestate #% agenciesmustagreetosetuplicensingprogramsforblindvendors, J% ' matchthemwithavailablecontractsforvendingfacilitieson &F") federalproperty,andprovidethemwithequipmentandstock.Id. (#+ Onceapproved,thoseagenciesareknownas"statelicensing N*%- agencies"(SLAs). X0XX X0ԀNewHampshire'sSLAistheNewHampshire +J'/ DepartmentofEducation,DivisionofVocationalRehabilitation,  BureauofBlindServices. # X0XXX0.# \  ` Wequoteasuccinctdescriptionoftheoperationofthe X RSActsetforthbyasistercircuit:   3,XX X,X` X30   ` TheRandolphSheppardActwasenactedinorderto `  provideemploymentopportunitiesfortheblind.TheAct 6   grantsprioritytothoseblindpersonswhodesireto  \  operatevendingfacilitiesonfederalproperty.20  2  U.S.C.107(b).TheActdividesresponsibilityforthe   blindvendorprogrambetweenthestateandfederal   agencies.TheSecretaryofEducationisresponsiblefor d  interpretingandenforcingtheAct'sprovisions,andmore :  specifically,fordesignatingstatelicensingagencies. `  20U.S.C.107a(a)(5),107b;34C.F.R.395.5,395.8. 6 Apersonseekingapositionasablindvendorappliesto   thedesignatedstateagencyandislicensedbythat  agency.Thestateagencyinturnappliestothefederal h governmentfortheplacementofthelicenseeonfederal > property.20U.S.C.107b.Oncethestateandthe d federalgovernmenthaveagreedonanappropriatelocation : forthevendingfacility,thestatelicensingagencyis  responsibleforequippingthefacilityandfurnishingthe  initialstockandinventory.20U.S.C.107b(2).The l blindvendorthereafteroperatesasasoleproprietorwho B isentitledtotheprofitsofthevendingfacilityand h whoisresponsibleforthefacility'slosses.>   0   ` TheActrequiresthatifthestatelicensingagency  operatesvendingmachinesthatdirectlycompetewitha  vendingfacilityoperatedbyablindvendor,thena p  percentageoftheincomefromsuchcompetingmachines F ! mustbegiventotheblindvendorlicensedtodobusiness !l" onthatproperty.20U.S.C.107d3.Ifnolicenseeis !B# operatingafacilityontheproperty,theincomefrom "$ stateoperatedvendingmachinesisusedforavarietyof #% purposesthatbenefitallblindvendorsinthestate t$& program.20U.S.C.107d3(c).J% '   /7,X` X,XX X/7/Tenn.Dep'tofHumanServs.v.UnitedStatesDep'tofEduc.,979 &F") F.2d1162,116364(6thCir.1992). (#+  ` States'participationintheprogramisvoluntary. N*%- Stateschoosewhethertheywishtohavetheiragenciesapply_##to +J'/ administertheprogramundertheRSActandtakeonthe  correspondingobligations.See20U.S.C.107b.Theprincipal \ benefitthatastatereceivesforparticipatingintheprogramis X anopportunitytoimprovethelotofitsblindpopulation.A   participatingstatealsoreceivesfunds.Forexample,evenifno `  blindvendoroperatesvendingfacilitiesonaparticularfederal  \  property,therelevant_##SLA_##Ԁreceivesincomefromvendingmachineson   thatproperty;theseproceedscanbeusedtofundretirement, d  healthinsurance,sickleave,andvacationtimeforblindvendors `  andtodefrayvariouscostsassociatedwithrunningtheprogram.   20U.S.C.107d3(a),(c). h  ` _##SLAs_##Ԁalsoagreetoathreestepprocess("RSgrievance d procedures")X0XX X0Ԁfordealingwithblindlicenseeswhoaredissatisfied  withtheoperationofthevendingprogram:first,ahearingatthe l statelevelbeforethe_##SLA_##;then,anopportunitytoappealinan h arbitrationbeforea_##USDOE_##Ԁpanel;andfinally,judicialreviewof   thearbitrationpanel'sdecisioninthefederalcourtsunderthe p  AdministrativeProcedureAct(APA),5U.S.C.701# X0XXX0?#X0XX X0.H #  2      ׀Atthefirst  stage,the_##SLA_##Ԁagrees: \  3,XX X,X` X30  toprovidetoanyblindlicenseedissatisfiedwithany X actionarisingfromtheoperationoradministrationof . thevendingfacilityprogramanopportunityforafair   hearing,and...tosubmitthegrievancesofanyblind   licenseenototherwiseresolvedbysuchhearingto `  arbitration[beforethe_##USDOE_##].6     BB7,X` X,XX XB720U.S.C.107b(6).Afterthehearingbeforethe_##SLA_##,a  2  dissatisfiedblindlicenseemaygotoarbitrationbeforeapanel   convenedbythefederalSecretaryofEducation,under20U.S.C. :  107d2(b)(1).Theproceduresusedbythepanelaregovernedbythe 6 APA,5U.S.C.551etseq.20U.S.C.107d2(a).# X0XXX0A#X0XX X0Thedecision  ofthepanelis"subjecttoappealandreviewasafinalagency > action"undertheAPA,5U.S.C.701,inafederaldistrictcourt. : 20U.S.C.107d2(a).# X0XXX0@G#X0XX X0Ԁ # X0XXX0lH#X0XX X0  _## ` TheRSActsaysnothingaboutwhatreliefcanbegranted  atanyofthethreelevelswhenthegrievanceisinitiatedbya \ blindlicensee,ashere.Itdoesspecify,however,thereliefthat X canbegrantedwhenthegrievanceisinitiatedbyanSLA.} #  3      ׀# X0XXX0H#X0XX X0ԀSLAs   mayfilecomplaintsthatafederalagencyisviolatingtheAct.20 `  U.S.C.107d1(b).Inthatsituation,uponafindingbythepanel  \  that"actsorpracticesofanysuch...agencyareinviolation   of[theRS]Act,oranyregulationissuedthereunder,"theheadof d  theoffendingagency"shallcausesuchactsorpracticestobe `  terminatedpromptlyandshalltakesuchotheractionasmaybe   necessarytocarryoutthedecisionofthepanel."20U.S.C. h 107d2(b)(2).Thestatutedoesnotexpresslyauthorizetheaward d ofdamages.   ` TheotherfederalstatuteinvolvedistheSurface l TransportationAssistanceAct.TheSTAActseekstoincrease h constructionandsafetyontheinterstateandnationalhighway  systems.23U.S.C.101(b),103.Moststatesreceivelarge p  amountsoffederalfundingundertheAct;NewHampshirereceived !l" about$141millionin2002.SeeU.S.CensusBureau,FederalAidto  StatesforFiscalYear2002,at17tbl.1(2003)# X0XXX0J#X0XX X0. \  ` UndertheSTAAct,a# X0XXX0P#X0XX X0Ԁstatecannotacceptfederalhighway X fundswithoutenteringintoanagreementwiththeSecretaryof   Transportation.23U.S.C.106,110.Includedinsuchan `  agreementisthepromisetocomplywiththetermsandconditions  \  setforthinTitle23.23C.F.R.630.112(a).Title23,inturn,   setsforthaprioritysystemforvendingmachines.Historically, d  undertheSTAAct,statesacceptingfederalaidforconstruction `  projectsontheinterstatesystemhadtoagreenottoconstruct   "commercialestablishmentsforservingmotorvehicleusers"along h therightsofwayoftheinterstatesystem.23U.S.C.111(a). d In1983,CongressamendedtheActtoadd23U.S.C.111(b),which  createsanexceptiontothisgeneralprohibitionandsetsfortha l prioritysystemforvendingmachines: h 3,XX X,X` X30  [A]nyStatemaypermittheplacementofvendingmachines  inrestandrecreationareas,andinsafetyrestareas,  constructedorlocatedonrights-of-wayoftheInterstate p  SysteminsuchState.Suchvendingmachinesmayonly F ! dispensesuchfood,drink,andotherarticlesasthe !l" Statetransportationdepartmentdeterminesare !B# appropriateanddesirable.Suchvendingmachinesmay "$ onlybeoperatedbytheState.Inpermittingthe #% placementofvendingmachines,theStateshallgive t$& prioritytovendingmachineswhichareoperatedthrough J% ' theStatelicensingagencydesignatedpursuanttosection  &p!( 2(a)(5)oftheActofJune20,1936,commonlyknownas &F") the'Randolph-SheppardAct'(20U.S.C.107a(a)(5)).The '#* costsofinstallation,operation,andmaintenanceof (#+ vendingmachinesshallnotbeeligibleforFederal x)$, assistanceunderthistitle.# X0XXX0P#X0XX X0N*%-   T7,X` X,XX XU7T111(b);Pub.L.No.97424,96Stat.2097,2106(1983). +J'/  ` TheSTAAct,however,doesnotexpresslystatehow  disputesconcerningthe"priority"createdin111(b)shouldbe \ resolved.Ingeneral,authoritytoenforcetheSTAActhasbeen X delegatedtotheUnitedStatesDepartmentofTransportation(DOT),   see23U.S.C.315,whoseregulationsstate: `  3,XX X,X` X30  Ifthe[FederalHighway]Administratordeterminesthata  \  StatehasviolatedorfailedtocomplywiththeFederal  2  lawsortheregulationsinthispartwithrespecttoa   project,hemaywithholdpaymenttotheStateofFederal   fundsonaccountofsuchproject,withholdapprovalof d  furtherprojectsintheState,andtakesuchotheraction :  thathedeemsappropriateunderthecircumstances,until `  complianceorremedialactionhasbeenaccomplishedby 6 theStatetothesatisfactionoftheAdministrator.|\    n\7,X` X,XX X\723C.F.R.1.36.# X0XXX0Y#X0XX X0SomeprovisionsoftheSTAActcontainmore h specificenforcementprocedures,see,e.g.,23U.S.C.116(c), d 131(b),133(e),but111doesnot.TheSTAActdoesnotcontain  ageneralsuitmechanismoraprovisionrequiringstatestowaive l sovereignimmunity. h   ` In1985,twoyearsaftertheSTAActwasamendedtoadd  111(b),NewHampshirepassedlegislationtoplacevending p  machinesinrestareasalongstateturnpikesandtheinterstate !l" highwaysystem.N.H.Rev.Stat.Ann.230:30a,229:3# X0XXX0`#X0XX X0. TheNew "$ HampshireDepartmentofAdministrativeServices(NHDAS)wasputin t$& chargeofadministeringthevendingcontracts.NHDASselected  &p!( vendorsthroughacompetitivebiddingprocessopentoall.See '#* N.H.Rev.Stat.Ann.21I:11;N.H.CodeAdmin.R.Adm.603.06. x)$, Itspolicywasgenerallytoawardthecontracttothebidder $+t&. "offeringthehighestrateofreturntotheStateofNew  Hampshire,"aslongasthatbiddersatisfiedbasicrequirements \ liketheabilitytomeetthecontractspecificationsandtoposta X performancebond. Iftwoormoreofthehighbidswereidentical,   thecontractwouldgenerallybeawardedby"drawnlot."The `  exceptiontothisgeneralrulewasthatifoneofthehighbidders  \  wastheBureauofBlindServices(theNewHampshireSLA),the   contractwouldbeawardedtotheBureau(theTieRule).  d   ` SincethepassageofN.H.Rev.Stat.Ann.230:30a, `  NHDAShasinvitedbidsforvendingmachinecontractsonfive   occasionsforrestareasalongrightsofwayoftheinterstate h highwaysystem:(1)in1988forrestareas# X0XXX0c#X0XX X0ԀinHooksettonI93 ;(2) d in1991forrestareasinSeabrookonI95,SalemonI93,and  SpringfieldonI89 ;(3)in1997forrestareasinLebanononI89, l CanterburyonI93,SanborntononI93,andSuttononI89; (4)in h 1999forthosesamerestareaswhenthe1997contracthadexpired;   and(5)in2001forthesameHooksettrestareas. Alloftherest p  areasinquestionareownedbythestateofNewHampshire.The 8!" Hooksettrestareasareontollroadsandhavebeenconstructedand "4$ maintainedwithoutfederalaid.TheSeabrookrestareaswere $& constructedwithfederalaid,butareonthestateturnpikesystem <&!( andaremaintainedthroughstatefunds. Inthefirstfourbid '8#* opportunities,NHDASfolloweditsstandardprocedureasdescribed )$, above.T heSLAdidnotbidonthe1988and1991contracts, @+&. apparentlybecausebothcontractscontainedspecifications  requiringtheconstructionofshelterstohousethevending \ machinesandtheSLAisprecludedfrommakingcapitalexpenditures X understatelaw. TheBureaudidbidonthe1997and1999contracts   butlosttohigherbiddersinbothinstances. In2001,afterthis `  litigationhadbegun,NHDASdepartedfromitsstandardpolicy.  \  InsteadofaskingtheSLAtosubmitabidastheothercontractors   did,NHDAShadtheothercontractorsbidfirstandthenofferedthe d  Bureauthecontractonthesametermsasthehighbid(theMatch `  Rule). AfterconsultingwiththeNewHampshireCommitteeofBlind   Vendors,theSLAturneddowntheoffer,statingthatitpreferred h toawaitclarificationofitspriorityrightinthisaction.  d @88) II.    3,XX X,X` X3A.0  FirstFederalCourtAction (#(# 7,X` X,XX Xq7 ` OnJanuary6,1998,theBlindVendorsw #  4      ׀broughtsuitunder P 28U.S.C.1331,allegingthatthestatehadviolatedtheSTAAct, L 23U.S.C.111(b),byawardingvendingcontractswithoutgiving   prioritytomachinesoperatedthroughtheSLA.Thenameddefendant T!" wasthestateofNewHampshire,throughitsDepartmentof #P$ AdministrativeServices.Thecomplaintsoughtaninjunction $& voidingallexistingvendingmachinecontractsandrequiringthe X&!( statetogranttherighttooperatethosevendingmachinesto  licensedblindvendors,alongwith"suchotherreliefasis \ equitableandjust." Thecomplaintdidnotseekdamagesforthe X allegedpriorviolations.    ` Thestatedefendantmovedtodismissonthegroundthat `  thecourtlackedsubjectmatterjurisdictionbecausetheBlind  \  Vendorshad"failedtoexhaust"theiradministrativeremedies   beforefilingtheirjudicialaction,asrequiredby20U.S.C. d  107d1oftheRSAct.Themotionalsostatedthat"[i]fthecourt `  doesnotdismissthisaction,thiscourtshouldabstainfrom   acceptingjurisdictionoverthisaction,"citingColoradoRiver h WaterConservationDist.v.UnitedStates,424U.S.800(1976). d  ThestatesaidthattheBlindVendorshadsimultaneouslyfiledan  actionintheNewHampshirestatecourtsandthatthefederalcourt l shoulddefertothestatecourt. Asbestwecantell,thestate h courtactionalsoinvokedtheSTAActandsoughtdamages.    ` # X0XXX0h#X0XX X0Thestate'smotioninfederalcourtdidnotseekto p  dismisstheactionbasedonEleventhAmendmentimmunity.Nordid !l" itseekdismissalonthegroundthatthestatewasnotaproper "$ partyorthatnocauseofactionwasstated. t$&  ` Inthesupportingmemorandum,thestatealsodidnot  &p!( arguethatthecasewasbarredbytheEleventhAmendment.The '#* statedidarguethattheBlindVendors'claimaroseundertheRS x)$, Actbecause111(b)oftheSTAActincorporatedtheRSAct_##by $+t&. referringtoapriorityforvendingmachinesoperatedthrough"the  Statelicensingagencydesignatedpursuantto"theRSAct. The \ statecontendedthatRSgrievanceprocedureswereavailableand X hadtobeexhausted.Inherentinitsargumentwastheassertion   thataclaimunderthe_##STA_##ԀActcouldnotbebroughtbeforethe `  exhaustionofgrievanceproceduresundertheRSAct. Thestate  \  qualifiedthisargumentinafootnote,statingthat   3,XX X,X` X30  DefendantdoesnotagreethattheRandolph_##Sheppard_##ԀAct d  ingeneralappliestothefactsofthiscasenorthat,to :  theextentthatitdoesapply,thatitgivesPetitioner `  therightsclaimed.However,forpurposesofthisMotion 6 toDismissonly,itisassumedthatPetitioner's   allegationthattheRandolph_##Sheppard_##Ԁ# X0XXX0z#X0XX X0Actapplieswillbe  acceptedastrue. h    7,X` X,XX X7 ` Insupportoftheabstentionrequest,shouldthecourt "r notdismisstheaction,thestatearguedthattheentiredispute  (bothdamagesandinjunctiverelief)wouldbemorereadilyresolved z inthependingstatecourtaction,noting: &v 3,XX X,X` X30  Plaintiff'sstateandfederalsuitswerefiled " essentiallyatthesametimeandbothareatveryearly  stages.Thus,theforums'orderofjurisdictionisnot ~  afactor.Finally,theparallelstatecourtproceeding T ! wouldbethebettervehicleforthecompleteandprompt *!z" resolutionoftheissuesbetweentheparties.See "P# _##Elmendorf_##,48F.2dat50.Partofthereliefwhichthe "&$ Plaintiffseeksisterminationofcontractualrights #% betweentheStateandthirdparties.TheStatehasnot $& anddoesnotwaiveitsimmunitytosuitinfederalcourt X% ' undertheEleventhAmendmentoftheUnitedStates .&~!( Constitutioninregardstosuitsinvolvingcontractual 'T") rights.Therefore,onlyinthestatecourtactioncan '*#* alloftheissuesraisedbythispleadingbeaddressed. # X0XXX0#X0XX X0($+    37,X` X,XX XS7Ӏ )$, A (emphasis_##added)._##Ԁ# X0XXX0#X0XX X0Thus,thestateconcededthateveniftheclaim  couldnotgoforwardinfederalcourt,thestatecourtproceeding \ couldgoforward. X   ` TheBlindVendorsopposedthemotiontodismiss,arguing,   interalia,thattheirclaimsaroseunderthe_##STA_##ԀActratherthan `  theRSAct,thatRSgrievanceproceduresthereforedidnotapply,  \  andthatthe_##STA_##ԀActitselfhadnogrievanceprocedurestobe   exhausted. TheBlindVendorsalsoarguedthatabstentionwas d  improper,astheysoughtonlyprospectiveinjunctiverelief,while `  thestatecourtactiondidnotseekanyequitablerelief.  #  5      ׀The   statedidnotfileareply.# X0XXX0 #X0XX X0 h  ` ThefederalcourtissuedanorderandjudgmentonMarch d 17,1998,dismissingthecomplaintwithoutprejudice,findingthat  theBlindVendorshadfailedtoexhaustadministrativeremedies. l Thecourtacceptedthestate'sargumentthatthe_##STA_##ԀAct h incorporatedtheRSAct'sadministrativeprocedures,andrelied  principallyonthestatutorytextoftheRSAct,whichstatesthat p  RSgrievanceproceduresapplyto"[_##a]ny_##Ԁblindlicenseewhois !l" dissatisfiedwithanyactionarisingfromtheoperationor "$ administrationofthevendingfacilityprogram."20U.S.C.107d t$& 1(a)(emphasisadded).Thecourtfoundthattheterm"vending  &p!( facilityprogram"includedtheprogramunder111(b)ofthe_##STA_## '#* Act.Thecourtalsoaddressedinafootnotewhatitunderstoodto  bethestate'sreferencetotheEleventhAmendment: \ 3,XX X,X` X30  Parenthetically,thecourtnotesthattheStatealso X claimsthattheEleventhAmendmentprecludesanyawardof . monetarydamages.Ataminimum,thatissueisopento   debate.    7,X` X,XX X7  3,XX X,X` X3B.0  StateAdministrativeHearing # X0XXX0#X0XX X06  (#(# 7,X` X,XX Xɔ7 ` ByletterdatedMarch30,1998,theBlindVendors #  6        N  requestedastateadministrativehearingbeforethe_##SLA_##Ԁunderthe   firststageofRSgrievanceprocedures.TheBlindVendorssought V  injunctiverelief,"_##challeng[ing_##]therightoftheStatetogrant R anyvendingcontractsonInterstateHighwaystoanyonebutlicensed  blindvendors,unlessblindvendorsconsenttoanother Z arrangement."Significantly,theBlindVendorsalso,forthefirst V timepertinenttothecasebeforeus,soughtmoneydamagesinthe  formofcommissionspaidtothestatesincetheinceptionofthe ^ _##STA_##ԀActaswellasforlostprofits.NewHampshiredoesnotclaim  Z thatitassertedEleventhAmendmentimmunitybeforethestate  HearingOfficer,andourreviewoftherecordrevealsnosuchclaim b ! ofimmunity. (Ofcourse,thiswasastateadministrative "^# proceeding,albeitonerequiredunderafederalstatuteinan #&% agreementwiththestate.)Instead,thestatemoved# X0XXX0L#X0XX X0todismissthe % '  proceedingsbeforethe_##SLA_##Ԁonthebasisthat: .'~") 3,XX X,X` X30  (1)therestareasatissueareonstate,notfederal,   propertyandsoarenotsubjecttotheRSAct;(#(# 0  (2)theplaintiffs'claimsariseunderprovisionsoftheRS 2 Actthatarenotincorporatedintothe_##STA_##ԀAct;X(#(# 0  (3)anypriorityrequiredby20U.S.C.111hasinfactbeen   provided; (#(# 0  (4)evenassumingtheplaintiffshadanyrightsundertheRS 6   Act,thestatutedoesnotauthorizethestateHearingOfficer  \  toterminateanexistingconcessionagreementortoaward  2  relief.7,X` X,XX X.7  (#(#  ` ThestateHearingOfficergrantedthestate'smotionto d  dismissonJuly3,1998, saying: `  3,XX X,X` X30  BecausetheStatehaspresentedcredibleand_##unrebutted_##   evidencethatthe'restareas'inissuearelocatedon  Stateland,andbecausetheFederalstatutes[i.e.,the h RSActand_##STA_##ԀAct]canreasonablyberead[to]require > therequestedStateagency'priority'applyonlyto d accommodatesuchanapplicationtoavendingmachinerest : areaon'Federal'land,thereisnofactualissuethat  willreasonablypermittheCommitteeofBlindVendorsto  prevailonthesefacts.Therefore,thematteris l dismissed.L #  7      B   q7,X` X,XX X7 TheBlindVendorsmovedforreconsideration.Theydidnotdispute > thattheRSActappliesonlytofederalland,butarguedthat  111(b),unliketheRSAct,clearlyappliestorestareasonboth F ! stateandfederalland. Thestaterespondedbyarguingthatifthe !B# RSActdoesnotapplytotheserestareas,theHearingOfficerhad #% nojurisdictiontoissuerelief. TheHearingOfficerdeniedthe J% ' motiononJuly23,1998,reiteratingitspositionthatneither  111(b)northeRSActappliestostateownedland.  \  3,XX X,X` X3C.0  ProceedingsBeforeFederalArbitrationPanel X(#(# 7,X` X,XX XT7 ` InOctober1998,theBlindVendorsappealedthestate   HearingOfficer'sdecision,asauthorizedunder20U.S.C.107d |  1(a),byfilingaletterofcomplaintwiththefederalSecretaryof ( x  Educationagainstthe_##SLA_##.Intheletter,theBlindVendorssought $  (1)recognitionthatthepriorityprovisionsof111(b)applyto   stateownedrestareasoffoftheinterstatehighwaysystem,(2) ,|  recognitionthatNewHampshire'scompetitivebiddingprocessunder ( N.H.Rev.Stat.Ann.230:30aviolates111(b)byfailingto  providepriority,(3)permissiontointerferewithexisting 0 contractstoprovideblindvendorsaprioritytooperatevending , machinesatNewHampshirerestareas,and(4)moneydamagesinthe  formofallcommissionspaidtothestatesincetheinceptionof 4 the_##STA_##ԀAct,aswellaslostprofits. TheSecretary,asrequired 0 by20U.S.C.107d2(a),convenedanarbitrationpaneltohearthe   case.  8!"  ` ByletterdatedOctober28,1998,thestate_## #  8      _##Ԁmovedto "4$ dismissforlackofjurisdiction,butnotonEleventhAmendment $&  grounds.ThestatearguedprincipallythatRSgrievance <&!( proceduresdidnotapplytotheBlindVendors'complaintbecause  theclaimsaroseunderthe_##STA_##ԀAct,nottheRSAct. \   ` Later,sometimebetweenJanuaryandMarchof2000, the X statefiledanundatedmemorandumthatincludedachallengetothe   panel'sjurisdictiononthegroundthat"[_##a]bsent_##Ԁaclearintentof `  theCongresstowaiveaState'ssovereignimmunityunderthe  \  EleventhAmendment,theConstitutiondoesnotprovideforfederal   jurisdictionoverdisputesagainststatesbyfederalcourtorby d  extensionafederallyappointedarbitrationpanel." Becausethe `  _##STA_##ԀActexpressednosuchintent,thestateargued,therewasno ( jurisdiction.    ` Thisargumentthatnoreliefwasavailableinafederal 0 forumwasraisedmorethantwoyearsintothecontroversy.This , marksthefirstoccasionthatwehavefoundinwhichthestate  arguedthattheEleventhAmendmentprecludedapplicationofthe_##STA_## 4 ActortheRSActtograntanyformofrelief.Thestate's 0 memorandumcited_##Kimel_##v.Fla.Bd.ofRegents,528U.S.62(2000),   whichwasdecidedonJanuary11,2000.Perhapsreading_##Kimel_##is 8!" whatpromptedthestatetoassertEleventhAmendmentimmunityfor "4$ thefirsttime.Wenote,though,thatasfarbackas1973,the $& stateofNewHampshirehasraisedtheissueofEleventhAmendment <&!( immunityfromsuitunderfederalstatutes# X0XXX0n#X0XX X0.SeeCarverv.Hooker, '8#*  369F.Supp.204,216(_##D.N.H._##Ԁ1973)(discussingEleventhAmendment )$, _##immunityofstateofficialfromsuitunder42U.S.C.1983and  otherfederalstatutes). \   ` TheBlindVendorsalsofiledamemorandumonjurisdiction X onMarch3,2000.Itisunclearwhetherthismemorandumwasfiled   inreplytoorsimultaneous# X0XXX0#X0XX X0lywiththestate'smemorandum.Inany `  event,theBlindVendors'memorandumdidnotrespondtothenew  \  EleventhAmendmentargument.    ` AtahearingbeforethearbitrationpanelonMarch10, d  duringwhichthepartiesengagedinextensiveoralargument,the `  statemadenomentionofEleventhAmendmentimmunity.Nordidthe   statementionEleventhAmendmentimmunityintherequestedrulings h oflawthatitsubmittedtothearbitrationpanel. d  ` OnJune12,2000,thearbitrationpanelrejectedthe  state'sjurisdictionalchallenge,findingthatCongressintendedR l Sgrievanceprocedurestoapplytodisputesoverpriorityunder h 111(b).Thepanelmadenomentionofthestate'sEleventh  Amendmentargument.Therewasadissentingopinion,whichargued p  thatthecomplaintshouldbedismissed# X0XXX0#X0XX X0ԀbecausetheSTAActdoesnot !l" employRSgrievanceprocedures;thatopiniondidnotaddressthe "$ EleventhAmendmentissueeither. Thestatedidnotpressits t$& EleventhAmendmentargument,nordiditgotofederalcourtto  &p!( enjointheR-SgrievanceproceduresonEleventhAmendmentgrounds. '#*  ` InaseparateorderissuedonJuly11,2001,thepanel x)$, ruledagainstthestateonthemerits.Themostpertinent# X0XXX0#X0XX X0Ԁofthe $+t&. panel'srulingsoflawandfindingsoffactcanbefoundinthe  appendixtothisopinion.Principally,thepanelheldthatthe \ priorityprovisionsof111(b)requiredthatSLAsbegivena X "rightoffirstrefusal."Thepanelfoundthatthismeantthatthe   SLAhadto"receiveanopportunitytooperatevendingmachines `  beforeanyprivatevendorisevenpursued"(emphasisoriginal),and  \  thattheSLA"mustwaiveitsrighttoapriorityinwritingbefore   [thestate]approachesanyotherentity# X0XXX0#X0XX X0." ItheldthatN.H.Rev. d  Stat.Ann.230:30a,whichitfoundtoadoptaconflicting ,|  prioritypolicy,waspreempted.  (  ` Thepanelalsoawardedwhatittermed"prospective[]"  damagesintheamountofallcommissionsreceivedfromthedisputed 0 restareasafterOctober28,1998(whenthepaneldeterminedthat , theBlindVendorshadfiledtheircomplaintwiththeUSDOE)and  orderedthattheseamountsbepaidtotheSLAforappropriateuses 4 tobenefitblindvendors.ThepaneldeniedtheBlindVendors' 0 claimforattorneys'fees.   @( III.  8!"  ` # X0XXX0#X0XX X0OnSeptember13,2001,theNewHampshireDepartmentof #P$ Education,NHDAS,theNewHampshireDepartmentofTransportation, $& andtheStateTreasurer# X0XXX0I#X0XX X0Ԁfiledtwosuitsinfederaldistrictcourt# X0XXX0C#X0XX X0 X&!(  againsttheUSDOEandtheBlindVendors# X0XXX0#,seekingreviewof_##the (T#* paneldecisionunder20U.S.C.107d2(a)._## #  9      _## TheBlindVendors   filedcounterclaimsinbothsuits,seekingconfirmationand x enforcementofthepanel'sdecision,anawardofattorneys'fees, $t andamodificationtothepanel'sdamagesawardtocalculate   damagesfrom1985,whenN.H.Rev.Stat.Ann.230:30awas |  enacted,orinthealternative,fromJanuary6,1998,whenthe ( x  BlindVendorshadfirstbroughtsuit. Thetwosuitswere $  consolidatedwiththeassentofthestateagencies. Onmotionof   theBlindVendors,andovertheobjectionofthestateagencies , H  thedistrictcourtthendismissedallofthestateagenciesexcept D forthestateDepartmentofEducation,onthegroundthatthe  agencies,asmembersoftheexecutivebranch,werebarredfrom L takingpositionsindependentorcontrarytooneanother. H  ` Inresponse,thestateDepartmentofEducation,nowthe  onlyremainingstateagencyinthecase,movedtosubstitutethe P stateofNewHampshireastherealpartyininterest.New L Hampshiresupportedthemotion,assertingthatitwasthe"proper   realpartyininterest."Thestatedoesnotnowandhasnever T!" arguedthatitisnotaproperlynamedparty.Norhasitever #P$ arguedthatstateofficers,notstateagencies,weretheonly $& properpartiesbeforethecourtorthatprospectiveequitable X&!( reliefcouldbeawardedonlyagainststateofficers. (T#*  ` Bothsidesfiledcrossmotionsforsummaryjudgment.The  stateassertedEleventhAmendmentimmunityagainstboththe \ arbitrationpanelproceedingandanysuitinfederalcourtor X elsewherebasedon23U.S.C.111(b). Onthemerits,thestate   furtherarguedthatN.H.Rev.Stat.Ann.230:30aisnot `  preemptedbecausethe_##NHDAS_##Ԁpolicyisconsistentwiththe  \  "priority"requiredby111(b).Finally,thestatearguedthat   thedamagescalculationshouldhaveexcludedcommissionsfromrest d  areaswherethe_##SLA_##Ԁcouldnotmeetthenecessarycontract `  specificationsandshouldbefurtherreducedtoaccountforthe   capitalandmaintenancecostsincurredbythestatetobuild h vendingmachineshelters. #  10      ׀Thestateabandonedanumberof d argumentsithadmadeearlier.    ` TheBlindVendorscontendedthatthestatewaivedits l EleventhAmendmentimmunitybyparticipatingintheprogram h establishedbytheRSActandbyappealingthearbitrationpanel's  decisiontofederalcourt. Theyfurtherarguedthatthepanel's p  interpretationof"priority"under111(b)wasproper,basedon !l" similaruseoftheterm"priority"intheRSAct.Finally,they  arguedthatthearbitrationpaneldidnotawardthemsufficient \ damages:theamountofdamagesshouldhavebeencalculatedfrom X January6,1998ratherthanOctober28,1998.     ` Thedistrictcourtgrantedinpartanddeniedinpart `  bothmotionsforsummaryjudgment.Thecourtlargelyaffirmedthe  \  arbitrationpanel'sorder,modifyingonlytheamountofthedamages   awarded.ThecourtheldthatthestatehadwaiveditsEleventh d  Amendmentimmunitybyitslitigationconduct,dueto(a)the `  state'sfailuretoraiseitsEleventhAmendmentimmunityinthe   1998federalcourtlitigationandintheinitialstagesofthe h administrativeprocess,(b)thestate'sargumentinits1998motion d todismissthatRSgrievanceproceduresshouldapply,and(c)the  state'sinvocationoffederaljurisdictiontoreviewthe l arbitrationpanel'sorder. Proceedingtothemerits,thecourt h concludedthatthearbitrationpanel'sconstructionof"priority" 0 in111(b)wasentitledtodeference,seeChevron,U.S.A.,Inc.v.   NaturalRes.Def.Council,467U.S.837,84243(1984),andthat 8!" thepanel'sconstructionwasareasonableonewithinthescopeof "4$ itsdiscretion.Finally,thecourtmodifiedthedamagesaward, $& reducingittocompensatethestateforthecapitalandmaintenance <&!( costsofbuildingvendingmachinesheltersatseveralrestareas '8#*  andmovingthestartdatefordamagesfromOctober28,1998to )$, _##March30,1998,thedateonwhichtheBlindVendorsfirstrequested  astateadministrativehearing. Thestatetimelyappealed. \  @88) IV.  $t  ` ThestatearguesthattheEleventhAmendmentbars"the  < USDOEArbitrationPanelproceeding,anysuitfordamagesinfederal   courtandanysuitinstatecourtbasedontheSTA[Act]." D    ` X0XX X0Astate'simmunityundertheEleventhAmendmentapplies @  whetheraprivateplaintiff'ssuitisformonetarydamagesorsome   othertypeofrelief.SeminoleTribev.Fla.,517U.S.44,58 H  (1996)."Sovereignimmunitydoesnotmerelyconstituteadefense D tomonetaryliabilityoreventoalltypesofliability.Ratherit  providesanimmunityfromsuit."# X0XXX0I#Fed.Mar.Comm'nv.S.C.State L PortsAuth.,535U.S.743,766(2002)X0XX X0.# X0XXX0# H  ` ThestateassertsEleventhAmendmentimmunityfromboth  thearbitrationpanelproceedingsandthefederalcourtaction. P Seegenerallyid.;R.I.Dep'tofEnvtl.Mgmt.v.UnitedStates,304 L F.3d31(1stCir.2002).Italsoassertsthatitisbeyond   Congress'spowertosubjectittosuitinanyforum.Seegenerally T!" Kimel,X0XX X0528U.S.at74# X0XXX0#Ԅ91;Aldenv.Maine,527U.S.706(1999).The #P$ issueiswhetherthestatehaswaivedanyimmunitythatitmay $& have.Ourreviewastothisissueisdenovo.AreciboCmty. X&!( HealthCare,Inc.v.PuertoRico,270F.3d17,22(1stCir.2001). (T#*  ` AstatecanwaiveitsEleventhAmendmentimmunitytosuit )%, inthreeways:(1)byacleardeclarationthatitintendstosubmit \+&. itselftothejurisdictionofafederalcourtoradministrative  proceeding,Coll.Sav.Bankv.Fla.PrepaidPostsecondaryEduc. \ ExpenseBd.,527U.S.666,676(1999);GreatN.LifeIns.Co.v. X Read,322U.S.47,54(1944);(2)byconsenttoorparticipationin   afederalprogramforwhichwaiverofimmunityisanexpress `  condition,AtascaderoStateHosp.v.Scanlon,473U.S.234,24647  \  (1985);or(3)byaffirmativeconductinlitigation,Lapidesv.Bd.   ofRegents,535U.S.613,620(2002);Gardnerv.NewJersey,329 d  U.S.565,574(1947). `   ` Thestatehereinvokestwoindependentaspectsof   immunityfromsuit:immunityfromsuitinafederalforum(judicial h oradministrative)andsubstantiveimmunityfromliability.See d JonathanR.Siegel,WaiversofStateSovereignImmunityandthe  IdeologyoftheEleventhAmendment,52DukeL.J.1167,119293 l (2003);CarlosManuelVazquez,WhatIsEleventhAmendment h Immunity?,106YaleL.J.1683,169798(1997).Infact,thiscase  involvestwodifferentaspectsofastate'ssubstantiveliability p  immunityfromsuitsbyprivatepersons:immunityfromdamagesand !l" immunityfromprospectiveequitablerelief.Certainly,astatemay "$ waiveitsimmunityfromsubstantiveliabilitywithoutwaivingits t$& immunityfromsuitinafederalforum.SeeColl.Sav.Bank,527  &p!( U.S.at676;Atascadero,473U.S.at241.TheSupremeCourtthus '#*  farhasnotaddressedwhetherastatemaywaivefederalforum x)$, !OY ! !  immunitywithoutwaivingsubstantiveliabilityimmunityunderthe  EleventhAmendment.Weassumearguendothatastatemaydoso. \  3,XX X,X` X3 A.0  WaiverofEleventhAmendmentImmunityAgainstSuitfor X ProspectiveEquitableRelief <(#(# 7,X` X,XX X?7-3,XXX,X` X3  1.0 ` WaiverbyLitigationConduct ` (#` (# 7,X` X,XXXc7 ` Thestatearguesthatnoprospectiveequitablereliefmay R   begrantedatallineitherstateorfederalcourtagainstitfor  N  violationsofthefederalstatutesatissue.Thestatecertainly   neverarguedtothedistrictcourtin1998thatsuchreliefwasnot V  availableorthattheEleventhAmendmentbarredsuitoranyrelief R againstit.   ` Weconcludethatthestatehaswaivedbyitslitigation Z conductanyEleventhAmendmentimmunitythatitmayhavefrom V federalproceedings(forumimmunity)andfromprospectiveequitable  relief(substantiveliabilityimmunity). #  11      ׀Whenthestatemovedin ^ 1998todismissthefederalcourtaction,itdidnotassertthat  Z Congresslackedthepowerorintenttosubmitthestatetofederal  jurisdictionundertheSTAActortheRSActforprospective b ! equitablerelief.WhenthestatementionedtheEleventhAmendment, "^# itwasonlytosaythattherewouldbenoEleventhAmendmentissues # % astoclaimsinastatecourtproceedinginwhichdamages_##were f% ' sought.ThefactthatthestatefocusedonlyonEleventhAmendment  immunitytodamagesandsimultaneouslyagreedtoafederal \ administrativeforumreinforcesourviewthatthestatebyits X conducthaswaiveditscurrentobjectiontoprospectiveequitable   reliefinafederalforum.Thiscasegoeswellbeyondasimple `  matteroffailuretoraiseanimmunityargumentinearlier  \  proceedings.    ` Theconceptofwaiverbylitigationconductisrelatedto d  thedoctrineofjudicialestoppel.Here,thestate'sfailureto `  raiseEleventhAmendmentimmunitywasaccompaniedbyanaffirmative   assertionthatthe_##STA_##ԀActincorporatesRSgrievanceprocedures h (withitsconcomitantprocessofjudicialreview)andthatthose d proceduresmustbeexhaustedbeforeclaimscouldbepursuedunder  the_##STA_##ԀAct. #  12      ׀TheplaintiffsdidnotassertthattheRSAct l applied;itwasthestatethatmadethatargument,andthestate h is,asaresult,judiciallyestopped.See_##Cadle_##ԀCo.v.  _##Schlictmann_##,Conway,Crowley&Hugo,338F.3d19,22(1stCir. p  2003);_##Beddall_##v.StateStreetBankandTrustCo.,137F.3d12,23 !l" (1stCir.1998).Thestatethenactedconsistentlywithits "$ assertion,participatedinthegrievanceprocedures,andindoing t$& soadvantageditselftothedetrimentoftheBlindVendors.The  &p!( districtcourtreliedonthepositionarticulatedbythestatein  dismissingtheBlind_##Vendors'_##ԀinitialfederalcourtactioninMarch \ of1998. X  ` Attemptingnowtobeexcused,thestatearguesthatin   1998itneversuggestedtothefederalcourtthatthe_##STA_##ԀAct `  incorporatedtheRSActproceduresandthattheactionmustbe  \  dismissedforfailuretoexhaust.Basedonafootnoteinits   memorandumtothedistrictcourtin1998,thestatesaysthatits d  argumentwas,atmost,thatifplaintiffswerebasingtheirclaim `  onrightsundertheRSAct,thenRSgrievanceproceduresapplied.   Thatargument_##mischaracterizes_##Ԁthecontentofitspapers. h  ` Thestate'sargumentisdisingenuous:ifthe_##STA_##ԀActdid d notincorporateRSgrievanceproceduresandthoseprocedures  thereforedidnotapplytothecase,thentherewasnobasisfor l thestate'smotiontodismissonexhaustiongrounds.Moreover,in h responsetothestate's1998motiontodismiss,theBlindVendors  hadarguedthattheirclaimwasnotbasedontheRSActatall, p  butonlyonthe_##STA_##ԀAct,andnoexhaustionwasrequired.Thestate !l" didnotwithdraworalteritsposition,andthedistrictcourtthen "$ dismissedtheclaimsbasedonthestate'sposition. t$&  ` Havinggainedanadvantagebyobtainingthedismissal,  &p!( thestatedidnotseektoclarifyitspositionwiththedistrict '#* court,butrathertookadvantageofthedismissal.ByinvokingRS x)$, grievanceprocedures(knowingthatthoseproceduresultimately $+t&. providedforfederaljudicialreview)toobtaindismissalofa  claimforinjunctiverelief,andthenparticipatinginthe \ administrativeprocess,thestatehaswaivedanyimmunityitmay X havetoafederalforumandprospectiveequitablerelief.    ` Inessence,thestatevoluntarilyinvokedthe `  jurisdictionofafederalagency,the_##USDOE_##,andthefederalcourts  \  inreviewoftheagencydetermination,includingtheirpowerto   grantprospectiveequitablerelief,eventhoughitwasnotformally d  theplaintiffintheadministrativeproceeding.Thestate `  voluntarilyputitselfinthepositionofbeingapartyina   federaladministrativeforumwhoseactionswouldbereviewedin h federalcourt.Thestate'sactionsexpressedaclearchoiceto d submititsrightsforadjudicationinthefederalcourts. #  13      ׀To  permitthestatetoreversecoursewouldcontravenethereasonsfor l thedoctrineofwaiverbylitigationconductrecognizedby_##Lapides_## h and_##Lapides_##'scoreconcernthatastatecannotselectivelyinvoke  itsEleventhAmendmentimmunitytogainlitigationadvantage. p  See_##Lapides_##,535U.S.at62223;seealsoGardner,329U.S.at573 !l"  74;Wis._##Dep't_##ԀofCorr.v.Schacht,524U.S.381,393(1998) "$ _##(Kennedy,J.,concurring).Thesameconcernsaboutunfair  litigationadvantageunderliethejudicialestoppeldoctrine. \   ` Whenthefederalcourtdismissedtheactiononexhaustion X grounds,theBlindVendorsimmediatelyinstitutedthefirststepof   RSActgrievanceproceduresbyrequestingahearingbeforethe `  SLA.Thestateeventhendidnot"clarify"itsargument;rather,  \  itdefendedonthemerits,andnevermentionedtheEleventh   Amendment.Itistruethatthestatefinally,morethantwoyears d  intothismatterinearly2000,didraiseEleventhAmendment `  immunitybeforetheUSDOEpanel,citingKimel.Buteventhen,the   issuewasraisedalmostinpassinginoneparagraphattheend h ofamemorandumconcernedmostlywithotherissuesandwasnot d mentionedinoralargumentorinthestate'srequestedconclusions  oflaw. #  14        l ЀX0XX X0 ` Thestatereliesonthedoctrinethatan"Eleventh h Amendmentdefensesufficientlypartakesofthenatureofa  jurisdictionalbar"thatitmayberaisedonappealevenifnot p  raisedinthetrialcourt.Edelmanv.Jordan,415U.S.651,678 !l" (1974).Thescopeofthat"belatedraising"doctrineafterLapides "$ isunclear.R #  15      ׀Regardless,thestateiswronginarguingthat_##the t$& "belatedraising"doctrineundercutsthewaiverdoctrine.The  doctrinethatastatemaywaiveitsimmunitybyitslitigation \ conducthasbeenaliveandwell# X0XXX02#X0XX X0ԀbothbeforeandafterEdelman.See X _##Lapides_##,535U.S.at61824;Gunterv.Atl.CoastLineR.R.Co.,   200U.S.273,284(1906).# X0XXX0#X0XX X0ԀTobeclear,thiscaseinvolvesmore `  thanasimplefailurebythestatetoraiseEleventhAmendment  \  immunityinearlierproceedings;itinvolvesavoluntaryand   calculatedchoicebythestatetogaintheadvantageofdismissal d  ofthe1998federalactionforinjunctivereliefbyarguingthat `  theremediesandgrievanceproceduresoftheRSActappliedto   claimsunderthe_##STA_##ԀActandthatthoseprocedureshadtobe h exhausted._##~ #  16      _##ԀThestatethenenteredthoseRSActprocedures d withoutawhimperofprotest.AstotheBlindVendors'claimsfor  prospectiveequitablereliefinafederalforum,thestate,having l gainedtheadvantagethatitsought,isboundbythechoicethatit  made. \ 3,XXX,X` X3  2.0 ` WaiverofProspectiveEquitableReliefinaFederalForum X byOperationoftheRSAct.` (#` (# 7,X` X,XXX77% ` Wealsoconcludethatbecausethestateisjudicially   estoppedfromdenyingthatRSgrievanceproceduresapplytoclaims 6   under111(b)ofthe_##STA_##ԀActandthestatehasvoluntarily  2  participatedintheRSActprogram,thestatehaswaivedany   EleventhAmendmentimmunityitmayhavetoawardsofprospective :  equitablereliefinafederalforumresultingfromRSgrievance 6 procedures.Wedonotdecidetheindependentquestionwhetherthe  state,solelybyenteringintoagreementsunderthe_##STA_##ԀAct,has > waivedanyEleventhAmendmentimmunitythatithastothe : requirementsofthe_##STA_##ԀAct.   ` Thiscasedoesnotinvolveasituationinwhichthestate B mayhavebeencoercedintowaivingitsimmunitybyfederal > requirementsforcingittochoosebetweenwaiverand"exclusion.  ..fromanotherwisepermissibleactivity."SeeColl._##Sav_##.Bank, F ! 527U.S.at687.# X0XXX0#X0XX X0Byitsvoluntaryagreementandparticipationin !B# thefederalprogramcreatedbytheRSAct,thestatehasbeen #% givenarightitwouldnototherwisehave:accesstofederal J% ' property# X0XXX0##X0XX X0.Noargumentispresentedthat,absentanyagreement &F") otherwise,Congresscouldnotconstitutionallywithholdthatright (#+  fromstates. N*%- _## ` Congresswasquiteclearin20U.S.C.107bthatstates   participating# X0XXX0$#X0XX X0ԀintheRSActprogram"shall...agree"tosubmit \ anydisputesthatblindvendorsmayhaveregardingthevending X programtothehearingandarbitrationproceduressetforthin20   U.S.C.107d1.Thethrustofthestate'sargumentisthateven `  ifitagreedtoRSgrievanceprocedures,noreliefofanysortcan  \  beawardedagainstitasaresultofthoseprocedures.Theeffect   ofthisargumentwouldbetorenderthoseproceduresmeaningless. d  Nocourthaseveragreedwiththestate'spositionthatnorelief `  maybegrantedunderRSgrievanceprocedures.   9,X` X,X` X9 ` StateswhoseSLAsapplytoparticipateintheRSAct h musthaveanticipatedthatbyagreeingtotheprocedures,they d agreedtosomeformofrelief,atleastprospectiveequitable  relief,againstthemeveniftheyarenameddirectlyasparties. l Afterall,# X0XXX0i&#X0XX X0"[t]heonlypartieswithwhomblindvendorscanhave h disputestosubmittoarbitrationarestates."McNabbv.United  StatesDep'tofEduc.,862F.2d681,685(8thCir.1988)(Lay, p  C.J.,concurringinpartanddissentinginpart).Thestatutealso !l" requiresstatestoagreethatthearbitrationunderthe# X0XXX0++#X0XX X0ԀRSAct "$ shallbefinalandbindingontheparties,subjecttoAPAreview.# X0XXX0,#X0XX X0Ԁ t$& 20U.S.C.107b,107d1(a).Thatagreementsupportswaiverof  &p!( objectionstoafederalforumand,atleast,toprospective '#* equitablerelief.SeePortAuth.TransHudsonCorp.v.Feeney,495 x)$, U.S.299,30708_##(1990).# X0XXX0-# $+t&. X0XX X0! !6,XXX,X` X6 B.0  WaiverofEleventhAmendmentImmunityFromDamages (#(# :,X` X,XXX/:6,XXX,X` X6  1.0 ` WaiverofImmunityFromDamagesbyLitigationConduct:,X` X,XXXw0: j` (#` (#  `     X / ` ThequestionwhetherthestatehaswaivedEleventh f Amendmentimmunityfromsubstantiveliabilityfordamagesresolves   differentlyonthisrecord,largelybecausethe# X0XXX0C/#ԀBlindVendors'1998 n  complaintinfederalcourtcontainednodemandfordamages.  j   ` Nowaiveroccurredinthe1998federalaction.The   complaintinthatactionsoughtonlyinjunctivereliefand"such r  otherreliefasisequitableandjust." Thestatewasnotputon n  noticebythe1998federalcourtcomplaintthatdamageswereat  issueinthatfederalcourtproceeding,andsohadnoreasonto v assertEleventhAmendmentimmunityfromdamages.Indeed,theBlind "r Vendorsexpresslystatedthattheirclaiminthefederalcourt  actionencompassedonlyprospectiveinjunctiverelief. Thestate z cannotbesaidtohavevoluntarilywaivedimmunityfromdamages B whenitfacednoclaimfordamagesatthattime. >  ` X0XX X0Theargumentthatthestatewaivedanyimmunityfrom   damagesinthe1998litigationisbasedonaperceivedunfairness, F!" wellarticulatedbythe_##USDOE_##Ԁasfollows: "B$ 6,XX X,X` X60   ` TheState'sdecisiontoforegoraisinganimmunity $& argumentallowedittocontinueanillegalpracticefor t% ' fiveyearsatthe[BlindVendors']expensewhile J&!( precludinganyrecoveryfortheblindvendors'losses.  'p") IftheStatehadraisedandprevailedonaclaimof 'F#* immunityin1998,the[BlindVendors]would, ($+ nevertheless,havebeenabletoobtainprospectiverelief )$, underExparteYoung.Byrequiringthatthe[Blind x*%- Vendors]pursueadministrativeremedies,theState N+&. successfullypostponedbyyearsjudicialresolutionof $,t'/ _##thecontroversy.IftheStateispermittedtoassert  immunityfromtheproceduresitpersuadedthedistrict  courttorequire,itwillhavesuccessfullydeprivedthe \ [BlindVendors]ofajudicialremedytowhichitwould 2 otherwisehavebeenentitled.TheSupremeCourt X establishedinLapidesthatinsituationsofthiskind, . theclaimofEleventhAmendmentimmunityhasbeenwaived.7    7:,X` X,XX X7: Thiswasclearlyhowthedistrictcourtviewedthematter.# X0XXX0v6# `   ` X0XX X0Weagreethat,forreasonsexplainedabove,unfairness  \  wouldoccurifthestatewerepermittednowtoassertimmunityto   barprospectiveequitablerelief,butwethinkacloseranalysisis d  requiredtodetermineifthesamelogicappliesinthecontextof `  immunityfromdamages.# X0XXX0=#ԀX0XX X0TheoperatingassumptionbehindtheUSDOE's   argumentisthatifthestatehaddirectlyraiseditsEleventh h Amendmentimmunitytodamagesin1998,the# X0XXX0?#X0XX X0ԀBlindVendorswould d insteadhavesoughtonlyinjunctivereliefagainststateofficers# X0XXX0@#X0XX X0  underExparteYoung# X0XXX0DA#X0XX X0Ԁandthuswouldnothavehadtogothroughthe l lengthyRSgrievanceprocedures.Butthisassumptioniswrong. h E# X0XXX0A#X0XX X0xhaustionofRSgrievanceproceduresisrequiredevenwhenonly  injunctivereliefissought.{ #  17      # X0XXX0B#X0XX X0ԀSeeRandolph-SheppardVendorsof p  Americav.Weinberger,795F.2d90,93,96# X0XXX0C#X0XX X0Ԁ(D.C.Cir.1986)  (requiringexhaustionofRSgrievanceprocedureswhenplaintiffs \ soughtonlyinjunctiverelief);seealso20U.S.C.107d-1(a)(RS X # X0XXX0MD#X0XX X0grievanceproceduresapplyto"[a]nyblindlicenseewhois   dissatisfiedwithanyactionarisingfromtheoperationor `  administrationofthevendingfacilityprogram"(emphasisadded)).  \  Thestate'sfailuretoassertimmunityhasmadetheBlindVendors   noworseoff;itistheneedforexhaustion,andnotthefailureto d  assertEleventhAmendmentimmunity,thatcausedthedelay. `   ` Moreover,afindingofwaiverinthissituationwould   workitsowntypeofunfairness.T# X0XXX0lE#heBlindVendorspresumablydid h notsuefordamagesinfederalcourtbecausetheywereawareof d potentialEleventhAmendmentproblems;instead,theBlindVendors  broughtastatecourtactionseekingdamages.Andthestatedid, l in1998,alludetoanEleventhAmendmentproblemwithadamages h actioninfederalcourt.Inthesecircumstances,afindingof  waiverbylitigationconductwouldbeunfair. p   ` ItistruethatthestatedidnotraiseEleventh !l" Amendmentimmunitywhendamageswereclaimedbeforethestate "$ HearingOfficerintheRSgrievanceprocedures.Butatthat t$& point,thestatehadalreadytakenthepositioninfederalcourt  &p!( thatanawardofdamagesinafederalproceedingwouldposean '#* EleventhAmendmentproblembutthattherewouldbenosuchproblem  inastateproceeding. \  ` Itisalsotruethatthestatedidnotimmediatelymove X beforetheUSDOEarbitrationpaneltodismisstheBlindVendors'   damagesclaimsonEleventhAmendmentgrounds.Butitdiddoso `  eventually,andinlightofitsearlierpostureinthecontroversy,  \  wecannotsaythebelatedraisingconstitutesvoluntarywaiverby   litigationconduct.X0XX X0 d  # X0XXX0$N# ` Finally,theBlindVendors,butnottheUSDOE,arguethat `  thestatewaivedimmunitysimplybyvoluntarilyseekingreviewof   theadverseadministrativedecisioninthisactioninfederal h court. Theyarguethatifthestatewantedtopreserveits d immunityfromdamages,itshouldhavesimplywaitedfortheBlind , Vendorstofileanactionindistrictcourttoenforcetheaward  andthendefendedbyassertingEleventhAmendmentimmunityatthat 4 point.  0  ` Thisargumentthattheseekingofjudicialreviewof   anagencydecisionundertheAPAbyastatethatwasadefendant 8!" beforetheagencyissufficientalonetoinferawaiverofimmunity "4$ fromdamagesfails,giventhefactsofthiscase.Thiscourt $& heldinR.I.Dep'tofEnvtl.Mgmt.v.UnitedStates,304F.3d31 <&!( (1stCir.2002),thatastatedidnotwaiveEleventhAmendment '8#*  immunitysolelybyseekingjudicialreviewofanagency'sadverse )$, determination.Id.at50.F #  18      ׀Thecourtnotedthatthestatein   Lapideshadwaivedimmunityinstatecourtandwas"attempt[ing]to \ regain,byachangeinforum,litigationadvantagethatthestate X hasalreadyrenouncedbyageneralstatute."Id.at49;see   Lapides,535U.S.at61718(expresslylimitingitsholdingto `  caseswherethestate'simmunityinstatecourthasbeenwaivedor  \  abrogated).ThecourtnotedthatRhodeIsland,bycontrast,had   "consistentlyasserteditssovereignimmunity,both[infederal d  court]andintheadministrativeproceeding,"andhencegainedno `  unfairadvantagebyseekingachangeinforum.R.I.Dep't,304   F.3dat49.Thesamelogicapplieshereastodamages.New h Hampshiregainednounfairadvantageastodamagesbyseeking d judicialreviewoftheadministrativedecision,giventhatithas  consistentlyasserteditsimmunityfromdamageswhenatissue. l 6,XXX,X` X6  2.0 ` InterpretationoftheSTAActAstoAuthorityToAward h Damages>` (#` (# :,X` X,XXXX:X ` Havingdeterminedthatthestatehasnotbyits  litigationconductwaiveditsabilitytoassertanEleventh F ! Amendmentdefensetodamages,weturntothequestionwhether  Congressintendedtoawarddamagesinthissituation.TheBlind \ Vendorsarguethatthestatehaswaivedimmunityastodamagesas X partofitsagreementtoparticipateintheRSAct.Twocircuit   courtshaveagreedwiththistheory.SeeDel.Dep'tofHealth& `  Soc.Servs.Div.forVisuallyImpairedv.UnitedStatesDep'tof  \  Educ.,772F.2d1123,113738(3dCir.1985);Premov.Martin,119   F.3d764,76971(9thCir.1997).One,theSixthCircuit,has d  disagreed,seeTenn.Dep'tofHumanServs.,979F.2dat116768,s #  19       `  ashasatleastonememberofanEighthCircuitpanel.SeeX0XX X0ԀMcNabb,   862F.2dat68788(Doty,J.,concurringinpartanddissentingin h part).# X0XXX0^# d  ` ThosecourtsfindingthatdamagescouldbeawardedinRS  grievanceproceduresandwerenotprecludedbytheEleventh l Amendmentnotethatarbitratorsweregenerallyauthorizedtoaward h damagesatthetime107b(6)waspassed.SeePremo,119F.3dat  770.TheargumentisthatanagreementtoarbitrationundertheR p  SActwasinherentlyanagreementtowaiveimmunityfromdamages. !l" Anargumentcouldalsobemadethatthestateand_##federal "$ governmenthaveacontractualrelationshipintendedtobenefit  blindvendors,anddamagesareacommonremedyinsuch \ relationships.SeeDelaware_##Dep't_##,772F.2dat113637.T #  20       X  ` TheRSActstatutorytextissilentastowhatremedies   maybeawardedagainststatesingrievancesbroughtbyblind `  vendors.TheregulationspromulgatedbytheSecretaryofEducation  \  donotdefinewhatremediesthearbitrationpanelmayaward.The   onlydiscussionofremediesintheRSActis20U.S.C.107d d  2(b)(2),whichindicatesthatwhereafederalagencyisthe `  defendant,itistheroleofthefederalagencyheadtoremedyany   violationoftheAct.SeeGa._##Dep't_##ԀofHumanRes.v.Nash,915 h F.2d1482,1492(11thCir.1990).Section107d2(b)(2)doesnot d expresslyauthorizeanawardofdamages,nordoesitexpressly  waivethefederalgovernment'simmunityfromdamages.Differing l conclusionscanbedrawnaboutthestate'simmunityinthis h statutoryscheme.   ` Atbest,thereisdisagreementastowhethertheRSAct p  arbitrationpanelscanawarddamages,withreasonedargumentsmade !l" onbothsides.Here,thereisanadditionallayerofuncertainty. "$ EvenassumingthattheRSActallowsdamagestobeawardedagainst t$& statesbasedoncomplaintsbyblindvendors,itisnotclear  &p!( whetherCongressintendedin111(b)ofthe_##STA_##ԀActtosubject '#* statestodamagesawardsforviolationsfoundinRSgrievance  procedures.GivenCongress'ssilenceinthe_##STA_##ԀActitselfandthe \ disagreementaboutdamagesundertheRSgrievanceprocedures,we X cannot,asamatterofstatutoryconstructionofthe_##STA_##ԀAct,find   anintenttosubjectstatestodamagesawardsunderthe_##STA_##ԀAct. `  SeeVermontAgencyofNat.Res.v.UnitedStatesexrel.Stevens,  \  529U.S.765,787(2000)("[_##I]f_##ԀCongressintendstoaltertheusual   constitutionalbalancebetweenStatesandtheFederalGovernment, d  itmustmakeitsintentiontodosounmistakablyclearinthe `  languageofthestatute."(citingWillv.Mich._##Dep't_##ԀofState   Police,491U.S.58,65(1989))). h  ` Accordingly,wevacatethedamagesaward.X0XX X0 d # X0XXX0m#