Opinion ID: 6497990
Heading Depth: 3
Heading Rank: 2

Heading: Factor Two: Administration

Text: Blessing factor two requires a plaintiﬀ to show that “the right assertedly protected by the statute is not so vague and amorphous that its enforcement would strain judicial compe‐ tence.” Talevski, 6 F.4th at 719. HFS does not appear to contest whether section 1396u‐2(f) satisfies this standard, nor could it. Saint Anthony argues that the State violated its right to timely payment by failing to abide by section 1396u‐2(f)’s statutory mandate of trying to ensure that the MCOs are pay‐ ing providers in line with the 30/90 pay schedule. Determin‐ ing whether payments met the 30/90 pay schedule is “admin‐ istrable,” “fully capable of judicial resolution,” and “falls comfortably within the judiciary’s core interpretative compe‐ tence.” Planned Parenthood of Indiana, 699 F.3d at 974.