With no explanation, chose the best option from "A", "B", "C" or "D". Young doctrine applies “even though [prospective relief may be] accompanied by a substantial ancillary effect on the state treasury”). This case is not like the Supreme Court’s decision in Coeur dAlene Tribe. There, the Court held that Ex parte Young did not apply because the relief the Native American tribe sought “would diminish, even extinguish, the State’s control over a vast reach of lands and waters long deemed by the State to be an integral part of its territory.” 521 U.S. at 282, 117 S.Ct. 2028. Unlike that case, a state’s interest in patents does not “uniquely implicate sovereign interests.” Id. In the absence of a “core sovereign interest,” a state’s injunction suit against state officers “may properly proceed in a district court.” Cahill, 217 F.3d at 100; see id. at 104 (<HOLDING>); Oregon v. Heavy Vehicle Elec. License Plate,

A: holding that a court may award injunctive relief against a state officer
B: holding state of connecticut may sue new york state officials for declaratory and injunctive relief in federal district court in suit over lobster rights
C: holding that there is an exception to eleventh amendment immunity for actions seeking declaratory and injunctive relief against state officials for alleged violations of federal law
D: holding that the eleventh amendment does not prevent private individuals from bringing suit against state officials for prospective injunctive or declaratory relief for ongoing violations of federal law
B.