Opinion ID: 544933
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 4

Heading: Would The Administrative Remedy Have Caused Irreparable

Text: 34 Injury? 35 The vendors also argue that if they exhaust their administrative remedies, they would be required to pay set-aside in the interim, but upon a later victory, recovery of the charges would be precluded by the State's eleventh amendment immunity. 36 But the set-aside currently being collected has now been approved by the Secretary; thus, it seems unlikely that the amount is being collected in violation of the Act. The real issue in the merits of their case is whether the State properly collected set-aside prior to the Secretary's approval--any irreparable injury in that regard has already occurred. 37 It is also doubtful whether eleventh amendment immunity would be available to the State if the vendors do eventually file for a review of the administrative proceedings. See Delaware Dep't of Health & Soc. Svcs. v. Dep't of Educ., 772 F.2d 1123, 1136-37 (3d Cir.1985) (eleventh amendment does not bar recovery from state pursuant to Randolph-Sheppard because the Act requires the states to submit to arbitration, where damages are commonplace; hence, relationship is essentially contractual); Committee of Blind Vendors, 695 F.Supp. at 1240-41 (agreeing with the Third Circuit's analysis on the issue). We, therefore, do not consider it likely that the vendors will suffer irreparable injury as a result of the exhaustion requirement. 38 Accordingly, the judgment of the district court is 39 AFFIRMED.