Medicaid Act Enforced Under Supremacy Clause Claim

A federal district court in Texas has ruled that the operation of a state law may be enjoined under an action under the Supremacy Clause of the federal Constitution even though the governing federal statutory provisions do not create rights that are enforceable under 42 U.S.C. §1983.

Planned Parenthood of Cental Texas v. Sanchez, 2003 WL 21800213.

The case serves as an important illustration of an alternative route to enforcing federal law in light of the shrinking scope of rights enforceable under §1983.

Texas passed a statute barring funding for family planning to any entity that provides elective abortions. Planned Parenthood affiliates brought suit under §1983, alleging the Texas statute deprived them of the "right" to participate in family planning programs which are federally funded under the Medicaid statute and under Titles X (family planning) and XX (social services) of the Social Security Act. Plaintiffs asserted that these federal laws permit any provider who meets the federal eligibility requirements to participate in the program. The court, however, found nothing in the statutes that conferred a right to participate, and stated that even if regulations can be a basis for a right under §1983, these regulations only allow providers to apply for a grant, they do not give a right to participate.

But plaintiffs also alleged a violation of the Supremacy Clause, with federal question jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. §1331. Under that theory, the District Court found a likelihood of success on the merits…

There is signigicant support for the court's reliance on the Supremacy Clause. In Shaw v. Delta Air Lines, Inc., 463 U.S. 85, 96, n.14 (1983), the Court stated:

It is beyond dispute that federal courts have jurisdiction over suits to enjoin state officials from interfering with federal rights. See Ex parte Young, 209 U.S. 123, 160-162, 28 S.Ct. 441, 454-455, 52 L.Ed. 714 (1908). A plaintiff who seeks injunctive relief from state regulation, on the ground that such regulation is pre-empted by a federal statute which, by virtue of the Supremacy Clause of the Constitution, must prevail, thus presents a federal question which the federal courts have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. §§1331 to resolve. This Court, of course, frequently has resolved pre-emption disputes in a similar jurisdictional posture. (Citations omitted)

In Verizon Maryland, Inc. v. Public Service Commission of Maryland, 122 S. Ct. 1753 (2002), the Court stated:

We have no doubt that federal courts have jurisdiction under §1331 to entertain such a suit. Verizon seeks relief from the Commission's order on the ground that such regulation is pre-empted by a federal statute which, by virtue of the Supremacy Clause of the Constitution, must prevail; and its claim thus presents a federal question which the federal courts have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. §1331 to resolve.

In Golden State Transit Corp v. City of Los Angeles, 493 U.S. 103 (1989), an opinion by Justice Kennedy, joined by Chief Justice Rehnquist and Justice O'Connor clearly states that the absence of a claim under §1983 does not preclude a Supremacy Clause claim over which the federal courts have jurisdiction under §1331 and Ex parte Young. "By concluding that Golden State may not obtain relief under §1983, we would not leave the company without a remedy. Despite what one might think from the increase of litigation under the statute in recent years, §1983 does not provide the exclusive relief that the federal courts have to offer…Our omission of any discussion of §1983 perhaps stemmed from a recognition that plaintiffs may vindicate Machinists pre-emption claims by seeking declaratory and equitable relief in the federal district courts through their powers under federal jurisdictional statutes."

See also Burgio & Campofelice, Inc. v. N.Y. State Dep't of Labor, 107 F. 3d 1000, 1006 (2d Cir. 1997) (concluding that the Supremacy Clause creates an implied right of action for injunctive relief against state officers who are threatening to violate federal law).