Armstrong v. Exceptional Child Center, Inc.
191 L. Ed. 2d 471, 2015 U.S. LEXIS 2329, 135 S.Ct. 1378 (2015)
Premium Feature
Subscribe to Lexplug to listen to the Case Podcast.
Rule of Law:
The Supremacy Clause does not create a private right of action for individuals to enforce federal law. A federal statute's provision of a comprehensive remedial scheme, such as administrative enforcement, coupled with a judicially unadministrable standard, implicitly forecloses private enforcement through equitable actions.
Facts:
- The State of Idaho participates in the federal Medicaid program, which provides federal funds to states for medical services to low-income individuals.
- As a condition of receiving these funds, Idaho must comply with federal requirements, including Section 30(A) of the Medicaid Act.
- Section 30(A) requires state Medicaid plans to establish payment rates that are 'consistent with efficiency, economy, and quality of care' and sufficient to ensure medical services are as available to Medicaid recipients as they are to the general population.
- Respondents are private healthcare providers who furnish in-home 'habilitation services' to Medicaid recipients in Idaho.
- Idaho's Department of Health and Welfare reimburses these providers for their services.
- The providers alleged that Idaho's reimbursement rates were set too low to comply with the requirements of Section 30(A).
Procedural Posture:
- Private providers of habilitation services sued two officials of Idaho's Department of Health and Welfare in the U.S. District Court for the District of Idaho.
- The providers sought an injunction, claiming Idaho's Medicaid reimbursement rates violated Section 30(A) of the Medicaid Act.
- The District Court granted summary judgment for the providers.
- The state officials appealed to the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit, where they were the appellants.
- The Ninth Circuit affirmed the District Court's judgment, holding that the providers had an implied right of action under the Supremacy Clause.
- The U.S. Supreme Court granted certiorari.
Premium Content
Subscribe to Lexplug to view the complete brief
You're viewing a preview with Rule of Law, Facts, and Procedural Posture
Issue:
Do private Medicaid providers have a right to sue state officials in federal court to force compliance with Section 30(A) of the Medicaid Act, which requires reimbursement rates to be 'consistent with efficiency, economy, and quality of care'?
Opinions:
Majority - Justice Scalia
No. Private Medicaid providers do not have a right to sue state officials to enforce Section 30(A) of the Medicaid Act. The Supremacy Clause is a rule of decision, not a source of federal rights, and it does not create a private cause of action. While federal courts possess equitable power to enjoin unconstitutional state action, Congress implicitly precluded such enforcement of § 30(A). This preclusion is demonstrated by two factors: 1) the Act provides an exclusive administrative remedy through the Secretary of Health and Human Services' authority to withhold funds, and 2) the statutory standard requiring rates 'consistent with efficiency, economy, and quality of care' is judicially unadministrable and better left to agency expertise.
Concurring - Justice Breyer
No. Private injunctive actions to enforce § 30(A) are not permitted. The task of rate-setting is highly complex and nonjudicial in nature, making administrative agencies far better suited to this task than judges. Allowing courts to engage in direct rate-setting would lead to increased litigation, inconsistent results, and disorderly administration of a complex federal program. Alternative remedies, such as petitioning the federal agency to act and seeking judicial review of that agency's decision under the Administrative Procedure Act, are available.
Dissenting - Justice Sotomayor
Yes. Private providers should be permitted to sue to enforce § 30(A). Federal courts have a long and well-established history of using their equitable powers under the doctrine of Ex parte Young to enjoin state laws and actions that are preempted by federal statutes. Congress is presumed to permit such suits unless it affirmatively and clearly manifests an intent to foreclose them. The Medicaid Act's provision for administrative enforcement by withholding funds is not the type of 'carefully crafted and intricate remedial scheme' that demonstrates such intent; in fact, this Court has previously held that such administrative oversight does not preclude private equitable actions. The statutory standard in § 30(A), while broad, is not unadministrable and does not justify a complete bar on judicial review.
Analysis:
This decision significantly restricts the ability of private parties to enforce the conditions of federal Spending Clause programs in court. By finding that the Medicaid Act's administrative enforcement mechanism implicitly forecloses judicial remedies, the Court narrowed the scope of equitable relief available under Ex parte Young. This shifts enforcement power from private litigants and the judiciary to federal administrative agencies. The ruling establishes a higher threshold for plaintiffs seeking to compel state compliance with federal funding conditions, requiring them to overcome the presumption that an agency-centered remedy is exclusive, especially when the statutory standards are broad and complex.
Unlock the full brief for Armstrong v. Exceptional Child Center, Inc.