Armstrong v. Exceptional Child Center, Inc.
135 S. Ct. 1378
| SCOTUS | 2015Background
- Idaho's Medicaid plan reimburses habilitation services to eligible providers under §1396a(a)(30)(A).
- §30(A) requires methods to safeguard against unnecessary utilization and ensure payments align with efficiency, economy, and quality of care, while enabling access to care.
- Respondents, habilitation providers, sued Idaho officials seeking to increase reimbursement rates via injunctive relief.
- The district court and Ninth Circuit held respondents had an implied private right of action under the Supremacy Clause to enforce §30(A).
- The Supreme Court reversed, holding the Supremacy Clause does not confer a private right of action and that private enforcement of §30(A) is precluded.
- The Court concluded that Congress intended to foreclose private equity relief for §30(A) given an exclusive enforcement mechanism (withholding of funds) and the complexity of enforcing §30(A).
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Does the Supremacy Clause create a private right of action to enforce §30(A)? | Armstrong argues the Supremacy Clause creates an implied right of action. | Idaho contends no private right exists under the Supremacy Clause. | No private right of action exists. |
| Can Medicaid providers privately enjoin state officials to enforce §30(A)? | Respondents rely on equitable relief under federal law to compel compliance. | Equitable relief is foreclosed by the statute's structure and remedies. | Private enforcement via equity is foreclosed. |
| Is Ex parte Young or other equitable relief available to enforce §30(A)? | Respondents seek court-ordered compliance through equity. | Congress intended exclusive enforcement by agency mechanisms (funds withholding). | Not available; enforcement limited by statutory scheme. |
Key Cases Cited
- Gibbons v. Ogden, 9 Wheat. 1 (1824) (Supremacy Clause creates decision rule, not rights-creating text)
- Golden State Transit Corp. v. Los Angeles, 493 U. S. 103 (1989) (Supremacy Clause does not create private rights)
- Chapman v. Houston Welfare Rights Org., 441 U. S. 600 (1979) (textual reading of Supremacy Clause; private rights not implied)
- Seminole Tribe of Fla. v. Florida, 517 U. S. 44 (1996) (recognizes limits on equitable enforcement schemes; preemption context)
- Verizon Md. Inc. v. Public Serv. Comm’n of Md., 535 U. S. 635 (2002) (express remedy suggests foreclosing others; preemption context)
- Ex parte Young, 209 U. S. 123 (1908) (equitable relief against state officers for ongoing violations)
- Sandoval, 532 U. S. 275 (2001) (private rights not implied from spending-clauses without clear text)
- McCulloch v. Maryland, 4 Wheat. 316 (1819) (broad Congressional discretion in executing powers)