The case of Virginia Office for Protection and Advocacy v. James W. Stewart III, Commissioner, Virginia Department of Behavioral Health and Developmental Services, et al., 2010 revolved around the issue of whether a state agency could sue its own state in federal court without violating the Eleventh Amendment's sovereign immunity clause. The petitioner was an independent state agency created to protect disabled individuals' rights under federal law. They sought to investigate allegations of abuse at two state-run facilities but were denied access by the respondent, leading them to file suit in federal court seeking injunctive relief. The Supreme Court held that as a federally mandated protection and advocacy system established within the structure of Virginia’s government, it had standing to sue other parts of that same government in order to fulfill its federally assigned mission - protecting people with disabilities from abuse or neglect - without infringing on states’ sovereignty protected by Eleventh Amendment.

In the dissenting opinion for Virginia Office for Protection and Advocacy v. James W. Stewart III, Justice Antonin Scalia argued that the majority's decision violated principles of federalism by allowing a state agency to sue its own state in federal court without consent from the state itself. He contended that this was an unprecedented expansion of Congress' power under Section 5 of the Fourteenth Amendment, which he believed should only be used to enforce constitutional rights against states rather than create new ones. Furthermore, he criticized the majority's reliance on Ex parte Young as misplaced because it involved private parties suing state officials while this case involved a public entity doing so. Finally, he expressed concern about potential abuse where other federally-funded agencies could similarly bypass their states' sovereign immunity protections.