49 F.4th 1082
6th Cir.2022Background
- Ohio administers two foster-care tracks: a federal Title IV-E program for "certified" (licensed) foster homes that receive federal Foster Care Maintenance Payments (FCMPs), and a separate state Kinship Support Program (KSP) that pays non‑certified relative caregivers less and applies different approval standards.
- Title IV-E conditions FCMP eligibility on placement in a "foster family home" that is "licensed or approved" by the State and that meets the State standards approved by HHS.
- Plaintiffs are four foster children and four relative caregivers who were placed with non‑certified caregivers paid under Ohio’s state program and who sued, alleging entitlement to FCMPs under 42 U.S.C. § 672(a) and § 1983.
- The district court dismissed for failure to state a claim, concluding Ohio’s separate approval standards for non‑certified relatives do not satisfy the federally‑approved licensing standards required for FCMP eligibility.
- The Sixth Circuit addressed Eleventh Amendment jurisdiction (Ex parte Young) as to the state director and, on the merits, affirmed the dismissal: caregivers subject to different, lesser state approval standards are not "foster family homes" eligible for FCMPs under Title IV‑E.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Eleventh Amendment / Ex parte Young jurisdiction to enjoin state official | Suit seeks prospective relief to stop withholding FCMPs; Ex parte Young permits injunctive relief against state official | Sovereign immunity bars suit because injunction would require state treasury payments; relief is essentially monetary | Court: Ex parte Young permits prospective injunctive suit here (following Price); jurisdiction over state director exists for merits review |
| Meaning of "licensed or approved" foster family home under 42 U.S.C. § 672(c)(1)(A) | "Or" allows two separate paths: state "approval" under its kinship program suffices even if standards differ from licensing | Title IV‑E requires the same HHS‑approved standards be applied to any foster home receiving FCMPs; state nomenclature cannot create separate standards | Court: "Licensed or approved" contemplates categories but requires uniform application of the HHS‑approved licensing standards; differing state approval standards do not qualify for FCMPs |
| Effect of federal regulations and agency views | Plaintiffs downplay agency guidance as non‑dispositive | HHS regulations and statements confirm approved homes must meet the same standards as licensed homes for IV‑E eligibility | Court: Agency interpretation supports the statutory reading that differing standards are insufficient |
| Claim that Ohio discriminates against relatives (Glisson) | Ohio denies FCMPs solely because caregivers are relatives | Ohio’s KSP is temporary and encourages certification; it does not deny benefits solely on relation and allows relatives to become certified | Court: Glisson does not forbid bifurcated systems; state may operate a separate temporary kinship program so long as it does not categorically deny IV‑E eligibility to relatives who meet standards |
Key Cases Cited
- Ex parte Young, 209 U.S. 123 (1908) (authorizes prospective injunctive suits against state officials for ongoing federal‑law violations)
- Edelman v. Jordan, 415 U.S. 651 (1974) (limits Ex parte Young by barring retroactive relief that would require state treasury payments)
- Price v. Medicaid Dir., 838 F.3d 739 (6th Cir. 2016) (upheld prospective relief requiring future benefits payments as within Ex parte Young in benefits context)
- D.O. v. Glisson, 847 F.3d 374 (6th Cir. 2017) (states cannot deny IV‑E benefits to relatives who meet applicable safety and other standards)
- Verizon Md., Inc. v. Pub. Serv. Comm’n, 535 U.S. 635 (2002) (Ex parte Young inquiry: complaint must allege ongoing violation and prospective relief)
- United States v. Gonzales, 520 U.S. 1 (1997) (statutory use of “any” has expansive meaning and can mean “all")