Pennsylvania, Department of Public Welfare v. Sebelius

How courts have described this case

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

• noting that a “discretionary” condition does not defy Pennhurst, which “merely requires that states have clear notice of conditions on accepting federal funds, and imposes no requirement that such conditions be unconditional”
• affirming decision holding that Pennsylvania Department of Public Welfare violated the Purpose Statute, where it “failed to identify any . . . statutory provision that supersedes § 1301(a)”
• affirming rejection of Rule 56(d) argument where nonmovant failed to submit affidavit
• “[V]ague and indefinite allegations are inadequate to establish injury-in- fact.”

Source: CourtListener parenthetical corpus (CC0).