I
Sovereign immunity bars a lawsuit to the extent the
relief sought would operate against the State, even if
the State is not a formally-named defendant. See Lewis
v. Clarke , 137 S. Ct. 1285, 1290 (2017); see also
Republic of the Philippines v. Pimentel , 553 U.S. 851,
863-873 (2008). Municipal corporations lack sovereignimmunity. Monell v. Dept. of Soc. Serv. of the City of
New York , 436 U.S. 658 (1978).
If a complaint formally names a "municipality" as
the only defendant, yet defines the "municipality" toinclude not just the municipal corporation, but also alegally-distinct state entity, such that the relief sought
would operate against the state entity, does sovereignimmunity bar the lawsuit?

II
Municipal corporations can only be liable for
constitutional deprivations resulting from an unlawfulpolicy or custom in an area where state law gives themauthority to act. See McMillian v. Monroe County, Ala. ,
520 U.S. 781 (1997).
If resolution of the first question demonstrates that
the state entity is vested with the sole authority to takethe actions leading to the alleged constitutionaldeprivations, does this mean that the claims againstthe "municipality" defined as a municipal corporationnecessarily fail as a matter of law?

Whether sovereign immunity bars a lawsuit against a municipal corporation that is defined to include a legally-distinct state entity, such that the relief sought would operate against the state entity