Missouri Child Care Ass'n v. Cross

No. 01-3346 (8th Cir. June 28, 2002) ; Clearinghouse Number: 54821

Description

Missouri Department of Social Services Not Entitled to Immunity from Suit Brought to Enforce Adoption Assistance and Child Welfare Act

Abstract

The Eighth Circuit has held that defendant directors of the Missouri Department of Social Services and the Division of Family Services are not entitled to Eleventh Amendment immunity from suit in this action to enforce the foster care provider reimbursement provisions of the Adoption Assistance and Child Welfare Act of 1980 (CWA). Plaintiff Missouri Child Care Association (MCCA) alleges that defendants have failed to adopt a cost-based method of reimbursement to foster care providers in violation of 42 U.S.C. § 675(4)(A). Defendants argued that plaintiff’s suit should be dismissed on Eleventh Amendment grounds. The district court denied defendants’ motion for judgment on the pleadings, and they appealed. Affirming, the court of appeals held that the CWA does not reflect any intent by Congress to limit Ex parte Young actions, and that defendants are not entitled to the state’s Eleventh Amendment immunity under this rationale. Distinguishing Seminole Tribe v Florida, 517 U.S. 44 (1996), the court found that, in contrast to the Indian Gaming Regulatory Act, the CWA merely provides for oversight and funding restrictions that may be imposed by the Secretary of Health and Human Services. The regulations promulgated under the CWA provide for an administrative review process that leads to the Secretary’s ultimate authority to withhold funds from noncompliant states. The court held that neither the review process nor the Secretary’s ultimate authority to withhold funds limits the powers of the court or the remedies available. Moreover, the court held, administratively created schemes are generally not sufficient to foreclose private actions, such as an action under Ex parte Young or section 1983, because an administrative act is not sufficiently indicative of Congress’s true intent to limit the available remedies. The court also rejected defendants’ argument that Ex parte Young does not apply to plaintiff’s suit because the CWA is not part of the supreme law of the land under the Supremacy Clause. The court noted that, in an analogous context, the Supreme Court has specifically held that, under the Supremacy Clause, federal Spending Clause legislation trumps conflicting state statutes or regulations.

Additional Information

Attorney Information
Docket Date
2002-06-28 00:00:00+00:00

Files

Filed under: