Document: 540 U.S. 431 FREW, ON BEHALF OF HER DAUGHTER, ET AL.v.HAWKINS, COMMISSIONER, TEXAS HEALTH AND HUMAN SERVICES COMMISSION, AL. No. 02-628. Supreme Court of United States. Argued October 7, 2003. Decided January 14, 2004. As a participant in the Medicaid program, Texas must meet certain federal requirements, including that it have an Early and Periodic Screening, Diagnosis, Treatment (EPSDT) program for children. The petitioners, mothers children eligible EPSDT services Texas, sought injunctive relief against state agencies various officials, claiming did not requirements. claims were dismissed on Eleventh Amendment grounds, but officials remained suit entered into consent decree approved by Federal District Court. In contrast with statute's brief general mandate, required to implement many specific proposals. Two years later, when petitioners filed enforcement action, rejected officials' argument rendered unenforceable, found violations decree, directed parties submit proposals outlining possible remedies. On interlocutory appeal, Fifth Circuit reversed, holding prevented because also constitute Act. Held: Enforcement does violate Amendment. Pp. 436-442. (a) This case involves intersection two areas law: rules governing decrees. argue court should enforce arising under Ex parte Young, 209 123, unless first identifies, at stage, violation law such as statute itself. disagrees. here is order springs from dispute furthers objectives law. Firefighters v. Cleveland, 478 501, 525. petitioners' motion remedy consistent Young accepted they asked approve decree. Pennhurst State School Hospital Halderman, 465 89, which this Young's rationale inapplicable suits brought alleging state-law violations, distinguishable case, statute. Enforcing vindicates agreement reached comply courts are reduced approving decrees hoping compliance. Once entered, may be enforced. See Hutto Finney, 437 678. 436-440. (b) amici attorneys express legitimate concerns can undermine sovereign interests accountability governments. However, response their has its source court's equitable powers direction given Rule Civil Procedure 60(b)(5), encompasses equity traditional power modify light changed circumstances. See, e. g., Rufo Inmates Suffolk County Jail, 502 367. If detailed ensure compliance prospective effect mandates administer significant federalism principles require front-line responsibility latitude substantial discretion. decree's objects been attained, discharging State's obligations returned promptly officials. basic remain same, precise manner discharge not. establishes reason make necessary changes; otherwise, enforced according terms. 441-442. 300 F. 3d 530, reversed remanded. KENNEDY, J., delivered opinion unanimous CERTIORARI TO THE UNITED STATES COURT APPEALS FOR FIFTH CIRCUIT. Susan Finkelstein Zinn argued cause petitioners. With her briefs Edward B. Cloutman III Jane Kathryn Swanson. Irving L. Gornstein States amicus curiae urging reversal. him Solicitor General Olson, Assistant Attorney McCallum, Deputy Kneedler, Mark Stern, Alisa Klein. Rafael Cruz, respondents. Greg Abbott, General, Barry R. McBee, First Jeffrey S. Boyd, Melanie P. Sarwal, General.* JUSTICE KENNEDY 1 we consider whether bars 2 * cooperative federal-state provides funding medical poor. Wilder Virginia Assn., 496 498, (1990). participation voluntary; once elects join plan meets One requirement every participating program. 79 Stat. 343, amended, 42 U.S.C. §§ 1396a(a)(43), 1396d(r). programs provide health care reduce lifelong vulnerability illness or disease. provisions children, notice services. ibid. 3 Texas. 1993 civil action pursuant Rev. § 1979, 1983, seeking Department Health Human Services Commission, well these charged implementing named included commissioners agencies, Director, employees Health. individuals sued official capacities represented throughout litigation office attorney general. 4 alleged satisfy requirements They asserted would receive health, dental, vision, hearing screens; failed annual goals; gave recipients inadequate available claimed lacked proper management corrective procedures uniform 5 After was filed, moved dismiss them grounds. object, 1994 parties. suit, certified class consisting entitled services, more than million persons. Following extensive settlement negotiations, agreed resolve entering conducted fairness hearing, 1996. 6 Judicial 1996 subject present dispute. document about 80 pages long orders comprehensive mandate itself, requires procedures. An example illustrates nature difference. "provid[e] arrang[e] provision . screening all cases where requested," arrange "corrective treatment" cases. 1396a(a)(43)(B), (C). implements part directing staff maintain toll-free telephone numbers who seek assistance scheduling arranging appointments. Consent Decree ¶¶ 241-242, Lodging Petitioners 63-64. According advisors furnish name, address, one providers appropriate specialty convenient location, assist transportation arrangements Id., 243-245, 64. advisers inform enrolled managed plans free choose primary physician upon enrollment. ¶ 244, 7 after alleged, had complied respects. denied allegations maintained unenforceable even if noncompliance. evidentiary issued concluding violated. Frew Gilbert, 109 Supp. 2d 579 (ED Tex. 2000). argument, id., 660-678, remedies violations. 8 Appeals reversed. held statutory Act imposed clear binding obligation State. Frazar 543 (2002). assessed identified concluded none provided valid basis enforcement. Regardless reasoned, good enough established law, jurisdiction 546-551. 9 Other Circuits contrary result, bar like Kozlowski Coughlin, 871 F.2d 241, 244 (CA2 1989); Wisconsin Assn. Reivitz, 820 863, 868 (CA7 1987). We granted certiorari conflict among Courts Appeals. 538 905 (2003). II 10 advance reasons why without violating First, waived immunity course litigation. Second, contend permitted 123 (1908). agree enforceable so do address waiver argument. 11 reach confirms status shielding absent consent. Seminole Tribe Fla. Florida, 517 44, 54 (1996). To however, permits acting supra. standard allows relief, see Edelman Jordan, 415 651 (1974); Milliken Bradley, 433 267 (1977), measures ancillary Green Mansour, 474 64, 71-73 (1985). award retrospective instance, money damages equivalent, invokes immunity. Edelman, supra, 668. 12 elements both contracts judicial 519 (1986). A "embodies parties" "an desire expect will reflected in, as, generally applicable other judgments decrees." 367, 378 (1992). protecting interests. Firefighters, observed spring from, serve resolve, within subject-matter jurisdiction; come scope made pleadings; further complaint based. U.S., 13 brings us understand terms impermissible Young. Nor Firefighters. challenge only entry. narrows circumstances involving 14 theory advanced similar creates narrow exception rule suit. representatives threaten broaden exception, contend, allow bind governments significantly commitments what requires. Brief Respondents 9-22. Permitting broad give over just everything else full could federal-court oversight through proceedings avoid circumventing protections, argue, 15 disagree view states "a mandatory, obligation." 302, 76. assertion immunity, authority beyond waiver, concede. Tr. Oral Arg. 12. assume, moreover, enter failing outlined enforce, themselves 16 relies heavily our decision 89 (1984). distinguishable. U. S., 106. Jurisdiction improper "[a] grant retroactive, vindicate supreme law." Ibid. Here, contrast, highly way, requiring take some steps specifically require. same said, any effort particular way. reflects choice ways enforcing 17 678 (1978), instructive point. upheld Court's attorney's fees designed encourage existing order. prisoners prison conditions confinement violated Eighth Amendment, ordered improve conditions. When refused faith order, awarded prisoners' lawyers paid treasury. 685. objected, arguing exceeded argument: 18 "In exercising issuing injunctions officers issued, injunction agency refuses adhere financial penalty most effective means insuring doctrine surely sending high jail. less intrusive impose fine properly treated relief." 690-691 (footnote omitted). 19 "vindicated recalcitrant litigant," continued. "We no distinguish injunction." 691-692. 20 While Finney somewhat different involved prior rather antecedent question principle applies. 21 warn 23-32. assert arguments curiae. Utah et al. Amici Curiae. ones. limited reasonable implementations officeholders improperly deprive future designated legislative executive powers. lead periods time ongoing 22 law's Rules Procedure. particular, 60(b)(5) party move "it longer judgment application." 367 (1992), explored application institutional reform. noted district apply "flexible standard" modification change facts warrants amendment. 393. Philadelphia Welfare Rights Org. Shapp, 602 1114 (CA3 1979) (modifying Pennsylvania's circumstances). 23 idea government "only marginally relevant" amend "principles simple common sense [district] weight" views 392, n. 14. State, administering 24 exercise public servants, presumed degree competence deciding how best governmental responsibilities. ordinary course, depends successor appointed elected, bring new insights solutions problems allocating revenues resources. done so, 25 remanded opinion. 26 It ordered. Notes: David T. Goldberg AARP Briefs affirmance Shurtleff, Utah, Alain C. Balmanno Joni J. Jones, Attorneys respective follows: Ken Salazar Colorado, M. Brady Delaware, Bennett Hawaii, Lawrence Wasden Idaho, Richard Ieyoub Louisiana, Joseph Curran, Jr., Maryland, Michael A. Cox Michigan, Mike Moore Mississippi, Brian Sandoval Nevada, Peter W. Heed New Hampshire, Wayne Stenehjem North Dakota, Drew Edmondson Oklahoma, D. Fisher Pennsylvania, E. Long South Jerry Kilgore Virginia, William H. Sorrell Vermont, Peg Lautenschlager Wisconsin, Pat Crank Wyoming; National Conference Legislatures Ruda James I. Crowley.

Category: 9