Did Employment Division v. Smith and Ex parte Young both have somone acting on their behalf?
no
Title: Idaho v. Coeur d'Alene Tribe of Idaho
Passage: Idaho v. Coeur d'Alene Tribe of Idaho, 521 U.S. 261 (1997), was a United States Supreme Court case in which the Court held that the Coeur d'Alene Tribe could not maintain an action against the state of Idaho to press its claim to Lake Coeur d'Alene due to the state's Eleventh Amendment immunity from suit, notwithstanding the exception recognized in "Ex parte Young".  The case was an important precedent for aboriginal title in the United States and sovereign immunity in the United States.
Title: Employment Division v. Smith
Passage: Employment Division, Department of Human Resources of Oregon v. Smith, 494 U.S. 872 (1990) , is a United States Supreme Court case that held that the state could deny unemployment benefits to a person fired for violating a state prohibition on the use of peyote, even though the use of the drug was part of a religious ritual.  Although states have the "power" to accommodate otherwise illegal acts performed in pursuit of religious beliefs, they are not "required" to do so.
Title: Ex parte Young
Passage: Ex parte Young, 209 U.S. 123 (1908) , is a United States Supreme Court case that allows suits in federal courts against officials acting on behalf of states of the union to proceed despite the State's Sovereign immunity, when the State acted unconstitutionally.
Ex parte Young Employment Division v. Smith