Product: Credit reporting or other personal consumer reports

Supporting facts for dispute XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX. 
XXXX, CA XXXX XX/XX/XXXX XXXX XX/XX/XXXX Under federal laws ; my rights are being violated 605B ( 15 U.S.C . 1681c-2 ) 15 U.S.C. 1681c-2 c ( a ) 15 U.S.C. 1681o 15 U.S.C. 1681n ( b ) 15 U.S.C. 1692 ( g ) 15 U.S.C. 1681b 15 U.S.C. 1681i ( 7 ) 28 U.S.C. 1738B ( c ) ( 1 ) ( A ) F.S. 817.568 ( 2 ) ( a ), under s. 775.082, s. 775.083, s. 775.084 F.S. 836.05 Threat ; Extortion The Account : XXXX XXXX Department of Child Support Account Number : XXXX Opened : XX/XX/XXXX Needs to be removed According To : XXXX  v. XXXX, XXXX XXXX XXXX ( XXXX ) XXXX, DIRECTOR, ARIZONA DEPARTMENT OF ECONOMIC SECURITY XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX. 
XXXX TO THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE XXXX XXXX  No. XXXX. Argued XX/XX/XXXX, XXXXDecided XX/XX/XXXX Argued : XX/XX/XXXX Decided : XX/XX/XXXX Syllabus XXXX TERM, XXXX Syllabus XXXX, DIRECTOR, ARIZONA DEPARTMENT OF ECONOMIC SECURITY XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX. 
XXXX TO THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE XXXX XXXX No. XXXX. Argued XX/XX/XXXX, XXXXDecided XX/XX/XXXX Summary : This case was brought on behalf of a class of women who sought child support enforcement services from the State of Arizona. Although federal law clearly required the states to have an effective child support enforcement program for all recipients of welfare and others who ask for help, Arizona 's program did not provide all required child support services or provide them in a timely manner. The district court dismissed the case holding that a 42 U.S.C. 1983 action could not be brought to enforce federally created rights to child support. On appeal, however, the XXXX XXXX held that plaintiffs could bring such an action. The Supreme Court took certiorari on the question of whether mothers could sue under 42 U.S.C. 1983 to compel the state to identify, locate and seek support from absent fathers as required by the federal statute. 

Decision : The U.S. Supreme Court held unanimously that in order to proceed under 1983, a plaintiff must show a specific enforceable right under federal law ; the Court further held that these plaintiffs had not pleaded which specific rights were violated by the State of Arizona. The Court remanded the case for a determination of whether specific rights of the plaintiffs had been violated by Arizona 's conduct of its child support enforcement program. In doing so, however, the Court unanimously rejected the State 's claims that the enforcement scheme under the Child Support Enforcement Act is sufficiently comprehensive to foreclose all review ; that the Eleventh Amendment precludes suit ; and that 42 U.S.C. 1983 does not encompass federal rights guaranteed by statute. 
The case, in holding that actions may still go forward to challenge state action ( or inaction ) with respect to child support enforcement as long as the plaintiff can show specific injury, was a victory for women, particularly in light of the many ways the Court could have chosen to foreclose access to the federal courts with respect to this statute. 

In an opinion authored by Justice XXXX XXXX XXXX, the Court ruled that Title IV-D of the Social Security Act does not give individuals a federal right to force a state agency to substantially comply with Title IV-D.