Court Opinion

ID: 9722475
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-26 09:35:08.519163+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T18:24:36.002882
License: Public Domain

JUSTICE KNECHT, dissenting: I would affirm because the trial court was correct in concluding the spousal-support provisions of article X of the Public Aid Code were preempted by the MCCA. Congress’s desire to preempt State law may be shown expressly, by implication, or through a conflict between federal and state law. Busch, 169 Ill. 2d at 335, 662 N.E.2d at 403. The United States Supreme Court has recognized: “[A] federal statute implicitly overrides state law either when the scope of a statute indicates that Congress intended federal law to occupy a field exclusively [citation], or when state law is in actual conflict with federal law. We have found implied conflict pre[ ]emption where it is ‘impossible for a private party to comply with both state and federal requirements,’ [citation], or where state law ‘stands as an obstacle to the accomplishment and execution of the full purposes and objectives of Congress.’ [Citation.]” Freightliner Corp. v. Myrick, 514 U.S. 280, 287, 131 L. Ed. 2d 385, 392, 115 S. Ct. 1483, 1487 (1995). In this case, the state law requiring a community spouse to use his or her income to support his or her institutionalized spouse in a long-term-care facility “stands as an obstacle to the accomplishment and execution of the full purposes and objectives of Congress” exhibited by the MCCA to protect the income of a community spouse from being required for the support of his or her institutionalized spouse in a long-term-care facility. I agree with the trial court: the MCCA restricts the State from seeking support from the income of a community spouse, even if his or her income is more than the monthly needs allowance, for his or her “institutionalized spouse” receiving Medicaid. The State argues this is against the public policy because financially secure individuals with high incomes might never have to contribute any of their income to their “institutionalized spouse’s” care. This is a question of policy. We are charged with interpreting a statute as it is written. If some limited number of community spouses take advantage of this policy, then Congress can change the statute to avoid this result.