EXCEPTIONAL CHILD CENTER, INC. V. RICHARD ARMSTRONG, No. 12-35382 (9th Cir. 2015)
Annotate this CaseThis opinion or order relates to an opinion or order originally issued on April 4, 2014.
Download PDF
FOR PUBLICATION UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT EXCEPTIONAL CHILD CENTER, INC.; INCLUSION, INC.; TOMORROW’S HOPE SATELLITE SERVICES, INC.; WDB, INC.; LIVING INDEPENDENTLY FOR EVERYONE, INC., Plaintiffs-Appellees, v. RICHARD ARMSTRONG; LESLIE CLEMENT, Defendants-Appellants. No. 12-35382 D.C. No. 1:09-cv-00634BLW ORDER AND AMENDED ORDER On Remand From The United States Supreme Court Filed May 14, 2015 Amended June 5, 2015 Before: Richard C. Tallman and Carlos T. Bea, Circuit Judges, and Stephen Joseph Murphy,* District Judge. * The Honorable Stephen Joseph Murphy III, United States District Judge for the Eastern District of Michigan, sitting by designation. 2 EXCEPTIONAL CHILD CTR. V. ARMSTRONG ORDER The Idaho Attorney General’s Petition for Panel Rehearing is GRANTED. The order filed on May 14, 2015, is withdrawn and replaced with the accompanying amended order. The Petition for Rehearing En Banc is therefore DENIED as moot. IT IS SO ORDERED. AMENDED ORDER The original decision entered by this court, reported at 567 F. App’x 496, was reversed by the Supreme Court of the United States. The Court held that the Supremacy Clause does not provide an implied private right of action and that Medicaid providers do not otherwise have the ability to proceed in equity for enforcement of § 30(A) of the Medicaid Act. See Armstrong v. Exceptional Child Ctr., Inc., 135 S. Ct. 1378 (2015). Accordingly, the Supreme Court has now specifically addressed the question our court had previously addressed, and the opinion upon which we relied, Indep. Living Ctr. of S. Cal. v. Shewry, 543 F.3d 1050 (9th Cir. 2008), is no longer valid and is overruled. See Miller v. Gammie, 335 F.3d 889, 893 (9th Cir. 2003) (en banc). In accordance with the Supreme Court’s opinion, we vacate the district court’s injunction, and remand with direction to the district court to dismiss the Complaint under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(b)(6) for failure to state a claim upon which relief can be granted. REVERSED and REMANDED.
Some case metadata and case summaries were written with the help of AI, which can produce inaccuracies. You should read the full case before relying on it for legal research purposes.
This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google Privacy Policy and Terms of Service apply.
