Armstrong v. Exceptional Child Center, Inc. (575 U.S. 320)
U.S. Supreme Court · decided March 31, 2015 · Supreme Court Database (Spaeth)
- Citation
- 575 U.S. 320 · 135 S. Ct. 1378
- Decided
- March 31, 2015
- Term
- October Term 2014
- Vote
- 5–4
- Majority author
- Justice Scalia
- Issue area
- Judicial Power
- Disposition
- Reversed
- Outcome
- Petitioning party won
- Ideological direction
- Conservative
Opinion excerpt
Justice SCALIAdelivered the opinion of the Court, except as to Part IV. We consider whether Medicaid providers can sue to enforce § (30)(A) of the Medicaid Act. 81 Stat. 911 (codified as amended at 42 U.S.C. § 1396a(a)(30)(A)). I Medicaid is a federal program that subsidizes the States' provision of medical services to "families with dependent children and of aged, blind, or disabled individuals, whose income and resources are insufficient to meet the costs of necessary medical services." § 1396-1. Like other Spending Clause legislation, Medicaid offers the States a bargain: Congress provides federal funds in exchange for the States' agreement to spend them in accordance with congressionally imposed conditions. In order to qualify for Medicaid funding, the State of Idaho adopted, and the Federal Government approved, a Medicaid "plan," § 1396a(a), which Idaho administers through its Department of Health and Welfare. Idaho's plan includes "habilitation services"-in-home care for individuals who, "but for the provision of such services ... would require the level of care provided in a hospital or a nursing facility or intermediate care facility for the mentally retarded the cost of which could be reimbursed under the State plan," § 1396n(c) and (c)(1). Providers of these services are reimbursed by the Department of Health and Welfare. Section 30(A) of the Medicaid Act requires…
Excerpt of a 52,712-character opinion. The full text and citation network load in the interactive viewer above.