Task: Wrong Candidate Generation
Input (English): aligns us with a broad coalition of other courts which, subsequent to Seminole Tribe, have rejected similar arguments aimed at barring suits for prospective in-junctive relief commenced by Medicaid beneficiaries against state actors. See, e.g., Frazar v. Gilbert, 300 F.3d 530, 550-51 & n. 109 (5th Cir.2002) (concluding that the Medicaid Act does not possess an intricate remedial scheme regulating noncompliance by states and permitting Ex parte Young action on behalf of Medicaid beneficiaries to secure EPSDT benefits); Mo. Child Care Ass’n v. Cross, 294 F.3d 1034, 1038 (8th Cir.2002) (concluding “that the [Child Welfare Act of 1980, Title IV-E of the Social Security Act] does not reflect any intent to limit Ex parte Young actions”); Antrican v. Odom, 290 F.3d 178, 190 (4th Cir.2002) (<HOLDING>); Westside Mothers v. Haveman, 289 F.3d 852, 
 Holding statements: (A) holding that the medicaid act does not provide the type of detailed remedial scheme that would supplant an ex parte young action (B) holding that existence of a detailed remedial scheme shows congressional intent to prohibit recourse to the ex parte young fiction (C) holding that the medicaid act provision allowing reduction of funds to noncompliant states is not a detailed remedial scheme sufficient to show congresss intent to preempt an action under ex parte young (D) holding that ex parte young permits jurisdiction over officials who have authority to control the assessments of railroad taxes that are in violation of federal law (E) holding that the cwa does not include a remedial scheme sufficient to preclude an ex parte young action
Output (English): holding that the cwa does not include a remedial scheme sufficient to preclude an ex parte young action