Douglas v. Independent Living Center of Southern Cal., Inc. (09-958)

argument 09-958

Douglas v. Independent Living Center of Southern Cal., Inc.

Supreme Court of the United States 59 min 5 speakers 8 chapters transcribed 7 days ago official recording ↗

▲ 0

Transcript

jump: chapters · speakers · find in transcript

Transcript

Transcript generated automatically by AI and may contain errors.

Why does the petitioner argue that Congress should not allow a private cause of action under §30A?

John G. Roberts 0:01

We'll hear argument first this morning in case zero nine nine five eight, Douglas versus Independent Living Center of Southern California and the consolidated cases. Mm short.

Unknown 0:13

Mr Chief Justice, and may it please the Court, there are many reasons why this Court should not recognise a private cause of action to enforce thirty A, and I'd like to focus on three. First is separation of powers. Congress controls who can enforce federal law. And it has not provided for administ for for uh private enforcement of thirty A. Instead it has provided for administrative enforcement. Second is the spending clause context in which the case arises. The very legitimacy of spending clause legislation depends on the state's voluntary and knowing acceptance of its obligations. For this reason, If Congress wants to provide for private party litigation, it must do so clearly and unambiguously, and it has not done so in this case.

Unknown 0:56

And third is the language of thirty A itself. which is broad and undefined and which includes competing policy interests. These are suited to administrative enforcement with all the expertise and judgment and discretion and administrative know how that can be brought to bear. These three principles all focus all point to one conclusion that Section thirty eight is not enforceable. Um The government doesn't have the injunctive power. And As far as California's rates are concerned. California puts them into effect. The government can't stop that from happening. Even if the government thinks that they are in violation of the Medicaid Act. Is that right? Um no, Your Honor, it it is not. I mean in the sense that it it can't go out immediately and get an injunction, Your Honor is correct.

Unknown 1:54

However, the government has the the power to deny a state. That's a very drastic remedy and it's gonna hurt the people that Medicaid was meant to benefit. Does the government have any injunctive power or is it only only remedy a fund cut off. Well it's its only remedy uh provided by a statute is to terminate funds. However, it is not a drastic remedy, it and it is the d remedy that's provided by how often has it happened? How often does it happen? How how often has in the Medicaid context Very rarely and the reason for that is because the way that most state plan amendments uh operate is that these issues are resolved. On a consensual bas basis, generally within the ninety days provided by regulation, this case is the exception that proves the rules.

Unknown 2:45

Well Mswartz,

Anthony M. Kennedy 2:46

isn't it the exception? Because in fact you end run and end ran the administrative process that you put your regulations, your new rate schedules into effect. even before you submitted them to HHS and continued them in effect while HHS was considering them and continued them in effect to the extent that you were allowed to do so by injunction even after HHS disapproved them?

Unknown 3:12

There is no end run here because HHS's own regulations provide that our time for submitting a state plot state plan amendment is within the ninety days that the amendment will take effect, and HHS will confirm that I know this is the position of the federal government, that the state may implement its rate reductions while the state plan amendment is pending. It does so at the risk that if a state plan amendment is disapproved, that it may have to pay additional funds. But we did not do an UNRUN around anything. We are entirely consistent with the administrative process. Could a State in its own courts uh provide for procedures whereby uh adversely affected parties could test the regulation. I don't believe so.

Unknown 3:58

And that is because in addition to it seems to me you have to say that, otherwise the next question would be under Gonzaga, you wouldn't say that a State can entertain a monetary cause of action. So I I I think that is consistent with your position. Well, and I think that it what is very important to focus on here is that this is not just any Federal statute that is being enforced, but it is a spending clause provision that is vague. in and ambiguous in its terms.