Armstrong v. Exceptional Child Center, Inc.

How courts have described this case

Verbatim parenthetical descriptions written by other courts when citing this decision. Ranked by citation-network relevance.

• recognizing that \express provision of one method of enforcing a substantive rule suggests that Congress intended to preclude others\
• holding that “[s]Jection 30(A) lacks the sort of rights-creating language needed to imply a private right of action.”
• recognizing that a plaintiff has a cause of action “in equity” to enforce the Supremacy Clause, even though that clause “is not the source of any federal rights” (internal quotation marks omitted)
• holding that private Medicaid providers could not sue to enforce Section 30(A
• holding that “[t]he ability to sue to enjoin unconstitutional actions by state and federal officers is the creation of courts of equity” and does not rest upon a right of action implied from some positive text
• explaining that courts “must not give effect to state laws that conflict with federal laws” (citation omitted)

Source: CourtListener parenthetical corpus (CC0).