JOHN K. BUSH, Circuit Judge. Universal Life Church Monastery (“ULC”) permits anyone who feels so called to become ordained as a minister—over the Internet, free of charge, and in a matter of minutes. Should the newly minted minister wish to solemnize a marriage in Tennessee, however, she will encounter a problem. Tennessee law permits only those “regular” ministers—ministers whose ordination occurred “by a considered, deliberate, and responsible act”—“to solemnize the rite of matrimony.” Tenn. Code Ann. (“TCA”) § 36-3-301(a)(1)–(2). And since 2019, the law has explicitly clarified that “[p]ersons receiving online ordinations may not solemnize the rite.” Id. § 36-3-301(a)(2).

Asserting that those restrictions violate the federal and Tennessee constitutions, ULC and various of its members sued several Tennessee officials to pursue an injunction and declaratory judgment. Yet the officials contend that they have sovereign immunity from suit and that, in any event, plaintiffs lack standing to sue. The district court rejected those contentions by and large, entering a preliminary injunction against several defendants. We are now asked to take up the same questions and reverse the district court. And, indeed, we hold that many of plaintiffs’ claims must be dismissed for lack of standing. But we also hold that as to the remaining claims presenting a live case or controversy, the district court properly denied sovereign immunity. We will thus remand a narrow portion of plaintiffs’ suit for further proceedings below.

. . .

Recognizing the procedural complexity of this dispute, we will take a moment in closing to summarize today’s decision. No plaintiff has standing to seek relief against Governor Lee, Attorney General Slatery, District Attorney General Helper, or County Clerks Crowell, Anderson, and Knowles. We thus AFFIRM the district court as to its dismissal of Governor Lee but REVERSE as to Attorney General Slatery, District Attorney General Helper, and County Clerks Crowell, Anderson, and Knowles. As a result, those portions of the district court’s preliminary injunction that purport to bind Slatery, Helper, Crowell, Anderson, and Knowles are VACATED. By contrast, however, we AFFIRM the district court’s determination that plaintiffs have standing to sue District Attorneys General Dunaway, Pinkston, and Jones, along with County Clerk Nabors. We also AFFIRM the district court’s denial of these officials’ sovereign immunity at the motion-to-dismiss stage, and so we do not disturb those portions of the preliminary injunction binding Dunaway, Pinkston, Jones, and Nabors. Last, we REMAND what remains of this suit to the district court for further proceedings consistent with this opinion.