Opinion ID: 1033240
Heading Depth: 2
Heading Rank: 1

Heading: New Jersey Regulations

Text: The District Court found that the MCO payment documentation requirement and the prior payment requirement violated New Jersey‘s regulations implementing Medicaid, and ordered compliance with those regulations. We conclude that the Eleventh Amendment barred the Court from taking any such action. The NJPCA characterizes its claim that the State violated its own implementing regulations as a violation of federal law. A federal court, however, is ―barred by the Eleventh Amendment from ordering . . . state officials to conform their conduct to state law.‖ Jones v. Connell, 833 F.2d 503, 505 (3d Cir. 1987); see also Concourse Rehabilitation & Nursing Ctr., Inc. v. DeBuono, 179 F.3d 38, 15 43 (2d Cir. 1999) (―As we repeatedly have explained, the failure of a State authority to comply with State regulations cannot alone give rise to a [42 U.S.C.] § 1983 cause of action.‖). In Pennhurst State School & Hospital v. Halderman, the Supreme Court explained: A federal court‘s grant of relief against state officials on the basis of state law, whether prospective or retroactive, does not vindicate the supreme authority of federal law. On the contrary, it is difficult to think of a greater intrusion on state sovereignty than when a federal court instructs state officials on how to conform their conduct to state law. Such a result conflicts directly with the principles of federalism that underlie the Eleventh Amendment. 465 U.S. 89, 106 (1984). The Second Circuit applied this doctrine in the Medicaid context, when a health care provider claimed that New York‘s manner of conducting audits violated the New York plan and regulations, and, as such, violated the federal Medicaid statute. Concourse Rehabilitation, 179 F.3d at 4344. The Court concluded that ―absent the assertion of a specific conflict between the State plan or practices and federal law, such allegations fail to give rise to a federal cause of action. Because Concourse's allegations fail to assert such a specific conflict, and because the Eleventh Amendment bars our consideration of purely State law claims, we lack jurisdiction to decide appellant‘s claim.‖ Id. at 44 (internal citation omitted). Similarly here, the District Court lacked jurisdiction to invalidate the State‘s action on the basis of the State‘s purported failure to abide by its implementing regulations.