Forum
U.S. Supreme Court
Case Status
Resolved
Docket Number
Term
2011 Term
Oral Argument Date
October 03, 2011
Lower Court Opinion
Questions Presented
Under 42 U.S.C. § 1396a(a)(30)(A) of the Medicaid Act, a state that accepts federal Medicaid funds must adopt a state plan containing methods and procedures to “safeguard against unnecessary utilization of .. . [Medicaid] services and . . . assure that payments are consistent with efficiency, economy, and quality of care and are sufficient to enlist enough providers so that care and services are available . . . at least to the extent that such care and services are available to the general population." The Ninth Circuit, along with virtually all of the circuits to have considered the issue since this Court's decision in Gonzaga University v. Doe, 536 U.S. 273 (2002), concluded that this provision does not confer any "rights" on Medicaid providers or recipients that are enforceable under 42 U.S.C. § 1983, and respondents do not contend otherwise. Nonetheless, in the present case, the Ninth Circuit held that § 1396a(a)(30)(A) preempted a state law reducing Medicaid reimbursement payments because the State failed to produce evidence that it had complied with requirements that do not appear in the text of the statute, and because the reductions were motivated by budgetary considerations.
The question presented is:
Whether Medicaid recipients and providers may maintain a cause of action under the Supremacy Clause to enforce § 1396a(a)(30)(A) by asserting that the provision preempts a state law reducing reimbursement rates?
Case Updates
Supreme Court considers Supremacy Clause cause of action
February 22, 2012
When this case reached the Supreme Court, federal agency officials disapproved the amendments, and California sought further administrative review. After oral argument, CMS approved several of the State’s amendments, and the State withdrew its requests for approval of the remainder. Accordingly, the U.S. Supreme Court vacated the lower court's judgments and remanded the case to the Ninth Circuit with instructions for the parties to argue before the Ninth Circuit whether the plaintiffs could maintain Supremacy Clause actions now that CMS has approved the state statutes.
U.S. Chamber files amicus brief
August 05, 2011
NCLC urged the U.S. Supreme Court to hold that the Constitution’s Supremacy Clause provides private parties with a right to bring preemption lawsuits against states and municipalities to challenge laws and regulations that are inconsistent or incompatible with federal law. In this case, Medicaid recipients and providers sued California for failing to pay the rates required by the federal Medicaid Act. NCLC argued in its amicus brief that for nearly 200 years, the U.S. Supreme Court has assumed that the Supremacy Clause provides such a cause of action. NCLC also argued that the business community relies on the doctrine of preemption to challenge patchwork state and local regulation in order to promote a unified national marketplace for goods and services. In recent years, NCLC has used the Supremacy Clause to bring its own lawsuits challenging the patchwork of state immigration laws, and to challenge misguided state labor union laws. NCLC also regularly files amicus briefs in support of other groups using the Supremacy Clause to challenge anti-business state and local regulations.
Cert. granted 1/18/11. Consolidated with Douglas(formerly Maxwell-Jolly)v. California Pharmacists Association,09-1158, and Douglas (formerly Maxwell-Jolly) v. Santa Rosa Memorial Hospital, 10-283. NCLC amicus brief filed 8/5/11. Decided 2/22/12.
Case Documents
- Douglas v. Independent Living Center of California (NCLC Amicus Brief).pdf
- Douglas v. Independent Living Center of Southern California - Brief in Opposition of Independent Living Center (09-958).pdf
- Douglas v. Independent Living Center of Southern California - Brief in Opposition of Sacramento Family Medical Clinics (09-958).pdf
- Douglas v. Independent Living Center of Southern California - CVSG Brief (09-958).pdf
- Douglas v. Independent Living Center of Southern California - States' Cert.-stage Amicus Brief (09-958).pdf
- Douglas v. Independent Living Center of Southern California - Petitioners Supplemental Certiorari Brief (09-958).pdf
- Douglas v. Independent Living Center of Southern California - Petitioners Certiorari Reply Brief (09-958).pdf
- Douglas v. Independent Living Center of Southern California (Brief for United States in Support of Petitioner).pdf
- Douglas v. Independent Living Center of Southern California (Merits Brief for Petitioner Douglas).pdf
- Douglas v. Independent Living Center of Southern California (Brief for National Governors Association, et al.).pdf
- Douglas v. Independent Living Center of Southern California (Brief for Michigan, et al.).pdf
- Douglas v. Independent Living Center of Southern California - Ninth Circuit Decision (09-958).pdf
- Douglas v. Independent Living Center of Southern California - Ninth Circuit Denial of Vacatur Motion (09-958).pdf
- Douglas v. California Pharmacists Association - Certiorari Petition (09-1158).pdf
- Douglas v. California Pharmacists Association - Brief in Opposition of Cal. Pharmacists Assn. (09-1158).pdf
- Douglas v. California Pharmacists Association - Brief in Opposition of Independent Living Center (09-1158).pdf
- Douglas v. California Pharmacists Association - Brief in Opposition of Lydia Dominguez (09-1158).pdf
- Douglas v. California Pharmacists Association - Joint Supplemental Brief in Opposition (09-1158).pdf
- Douglas v. California Pharmacists Association - Petitioners Certiorari Reply Brief (09-1158).pdf
- Douglas v. California Pharmacists Association - Ninth Circuit Decision (09-1158.pdf
- Douglas v. Santa Rosa Memorial Hospital - Certiorari Petition (10-283).pdf
- Douglas v. Santa Rosa Memorial Hospital - Brief in Opposition (10-283).pdf
- Douglas v. Santa Rosa Memorial Hospital - Petitioners Certiorari Reply Brief (10-283).pdf
- Douglas v. Santa Rosa Memorial Hospital - Unpublished Ninth Circuit Decision (10-283).pdf
- Douglas v. Independent Living Center of California (California Pharmacists Respondents Merits Brief).pdf
- Douglas v. Independent Living Center of California (Dominguez Respondents Merits Brief).pdf
- Douglas v. Independent Living Center of California (Santa Rosa Respondents Merits Brief).pdf
- Douglas v. Independent Living Center of Southern California - Certiorari Petition (09-958).pdf
- Douglas v. Independent Living Center of California (AARP Amicus Brief).pdf
- Douglas v. Independent Living Center of California (ACLU et al Amicus Brief).pdf
- Douglas v. Independent Living Center of California (American Healthcare Association Amicus Brief).pdf
- Douglas v. Independent Living Center of California (American Medical Association Amicus Brief).pdf
- Douglas v. Independent Living Center of California (Former HHS Officials Amicus Brief).pdf
- Douglas v. Independent Living Center of California (Members of Congress Amicus Brief).pdf
- Douglas v. Independent Living Center of California (National Association of Chain Drug Stores et al Amicus Brief).pdf
- Douglas v. Independent Living Center of Southern California (Respondent Independent Living Center Merits Brief).pdf
- Douglas v. Independent Living Center of Southern California – Certiorari Petition (09-958).pdf
- Douglas v. Independent Living Center of Southern California – Petitioner's Merits Reply Brief.pdf