Armstrong v. Exceptional Child Center
United States Supreme Court
135 S.Ct. 1378 (2015)

- Written by Sean Carroll, JD
Facts
Under the Medicaid Act, states received federal funds so long as they met certain requirements, including that they set medical rates that were “consistent with efficiency, economy, and quality of care” and “were sufficient to enlist enough providers” so that sufficient care and services were available in a state. The sole remedy against a state’s failure to meet the act’s requirements was the federal Department of Health and Human Services (HHS) withholding Medicaid funding. In Idaho, the state Department of Health and Welfare (DHW) (defendant) administered Medicaid. Exceptional Child Care (Exceptional) and other medical service providers (plaintiffs) sued DHW in the United States District Court for the District of Idaho, claiming that Idaho’s medical rates were lower than what the act required. The district court granted Exceptional summary judgment. The United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit affirmed. The United States Supreme Court granted certiorari.
Rule of Law
Issue
Holding and Reasoning (Scalia, J.)
Concurrence (Breyer, J.)
Dissent (Sotomayor, J.)
What to do next…
Here's why 816,000 law students have relied on our case briefs:
- Written by law professors and practitioners, not other law students. 46,300 briefs, keyed to 988 casebooks. Top-notch customer support.
- The right amount of information, includes the facts, issues, rule of law, holding and reasoning, and any concurrences and dissents.
- Access in your classes, works on your mobile and tablet. Massive library of related video lessons and high quality multiple-choice questions.
- Easy to use, uniform format for every case brief. Written in plain English, not in legalese. Our briefs summarize and simplify; they don’t just repeat the court’s language.