1. Given that California's State Bar Act, Cal. Bus. & Prof. Code §6000 et seq. ("State Bar Act") immunizes the Ex Parte Young defendants in respect of California State Bar attorney discipline matters from lawsuits under 42 U.S.C. §1983, is the State Bar Act void under Williams, which holds that the Supremacy Clause bars state court statutes and rules which immunize particular defendants from state court lawsuits under 42 U.S.C. §1983 where the state's courts of general jurisdiction may generally hear such lawsuits?

2. If the State Bar Act immunizes the Ex Parte Young defendants in respect of California State Bar attorney discipline matters from lawsuits under 42 U.S.C. §1983 and thus violates the Supremacy Clause under Williams, does this constitute "some other grave reason which should convince" the court "that to allow the natural consequences of the judgment to have their effect would conflict with the duty which rests upon us not to disbar except upon the conviction that, under the principles of right and justice, we were constrained so to do." Selling v. Radford, 243 U.S. 46, 51 (1917)?

Whether the California State Bar Act violates the Supremacy Clause by immunizing defendants from federal civil rights lawsuits under 42 U.S.C. §1983 in attorney discipline proceedings