Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-ca9-12-35382/USCOURTS-ca9-12-35382-0/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 950
Nature of Suit: Constitutionality of State Statutes
Cause of Action: 

---

FOR PUBLICATION

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT

EXCEPTIONAL CHILD CENTER, INC.;

INCLUSION, INC.; TOMORROW’S

HOPE SATELLITE SERVICES, INC.;

WDB, INC.; LIVING INDEPENDENTLY

FOR EVERYONE, INC.,

Plaintiffs-Appellees,

v.

RICHARD ARMSTRONG; LESLIE

CLEMENT,

Defendants-Appellants.

No. 12-35382

D.C. No.

1:09-cv-00634-

BLW

ORDER AND

AMENDED

ORDER

On Remand From The United States Supreme Court

Filed May 14, 2015

Amended June 5, 2015

Before: Richard C. Tallman and Carlos T. Bea, Circuit

Judges, and Stephen Joseph Murphy,

*

 District Judge.

* The Honorable Stephen Joseph Murphy III, United States District

Judge for the Eastern District of Michigan, sitting by designation.

 Case: 12-35382, 06/05/2015, ID: 9562707, DktEntry: 50, Page 1 of 2
2 EXCEPTIONAL CHILD CTR. V. ARMSTRONG

ORDER

The Idaho Attorney General’s Petition for Panel

Rehearing is GRANTED. The order filed on May 14, 2015,

is withdrawn and replaced with the accompanying amended

order. The Petition for Rehearing En Banc is therefore

DENIED as moot.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

AMENDED ORDER

The original decision entered by this court, reported at

567 F. App’x 496, was reversed by the Supreme Court of the

United States. The Court held that the Supremacy Clause

does not provide an implied private right of action and that

Medicaid providers do not otherwise have the ability to

proceed in equity for enforcement of § 30(A) of the Medicaid

Act. See Armstrong v. Exceptional Child Ctr., Inc., 135 S. Ct.

1378 (2015). Accordingly, the Supreme Court has now

specifically addressed the question our court had previously

addressed, and the opinion upon which we relied, Indep.

Living Ctr. of S. Cal. v. Shewry, 543 F.3d 1050 (9th Cir.

2008), is no longer valid and is overruled. See Miller v.

Gammie, 335 F.3d 889, 893 (9th Cir. 2003) (en banc). In

accordance with the Supreme Court’s opinion, we vacate the

district court’s injunction, and remand with direction to the

district court to dismiss the Complaint under Federal Rule of

Civil Procedure 12(b)(6) for failure to state a claim upon

which relief can be granted.

REVERSED and REMANDED.

 Case: 12-35382, 06/05/2015, ID: 9562707, DktEntry: 50, Page 2 of 2