Westside Mothers v. Haveman
United States Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit
289 F.3d 852 (2002)
- Written by Craig Conway, LLM
Facts
The federal Medicaid program provides health care financial assistance to low-income residents of a participating state. States participating in the Medicaid program are required to comply with the Medicaid Act (MA) as well as the regulations promulgated to carry out the MA’s purpose. One such federal regulation requires participating states to provide “early and periodic screening, diagnostic, and treatment services” for eligible individuals under 21-years of age. Westside Mothers (plaintiff) sued James Haveman, director of the Michigan Department of Community Health (defendant) and others under 42 U.S.C. § 1983, alleging that Michigan had refused or failed to provide screening and treatment services. Section 1983 creates a private cause of action against any person who deprives an individual of “any right, privileges, or immunities secured by the Constitution and law” of the United States. The district court granted Haveman’s motion to dismiss, holding that (1) Medicaid was only a contract between a state and the federal government, (2) that spending-power programs like Medicaid were not the supreme law of the land, (3) that the court lacked jurisdiction over the matter because Michigan enjoyed sovereign immunity, and (4) Section 1983 did not create a private cause of action for Westside Mothers. Westside Mothers appealed to the court of appeals.
Rule of Law
Issue
Holding and Reasoning (Merritt, J.)
What to do next…
Here's why 814,000 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.