Douglas v. California Pharmacists Association SCOTUS Case

        The case I was assigned to follow was Douglas v. California Pharmacists Association. The state of California has been making cuts to the Medicaid reimbursements and the recipients and providers of Medicaid want to fight against these cuts the state is making. However, this case is not about the arguments against the state, but whether or not these people can even make arguments in the first place. The main constitutional issue in this case surrounds the Supremacy Clause, along with Ex Parte Young. The Supremacy Clause essentially establishes the Constitution, Federal Statutes, and U.S. treaties as “the supreme law of the land.” So, the states judges must follow laws included in these areas even in state laws conflict with them. If the states don’t follow these laws, then, under Ex Parte Young, the state can be sued. Medicaid and the right of the people to have access to this is clearly stated under the Social Security Act, so the people believe that it is well in the laws of the country for the state of California and its officials to be sued for making cuts that make it harder for some families to get access to the care they need. However, some members of the Supreme Court feel that a new look should be taken at how open the courts should be to claims that states are violating federal law.

California spends more than $41 billion a year on the Medicaid Program (Medi-Cal), and it takes up approximately 13% of the state’s budget. However, California Legislature approved reimbursements cuts in 2008 and 2009 because of the worsening financial crisis. These cuts were between 1% and 10%. So, if looked at under the Supremacy Clause, these reimbursements violated the requirements of the Medicaid law of 1965 that state payments remain “consistent with efficiency, economy and quality of care” and overall sufficient for medical professionals. So, hospitals, unions, and organizations sued.

When the case of whether or not the state can even be sued in the first place reached the Supreme Court on October 3^rd, 2011, Justice Stephen G. Breyer argued that if hundreds and hundreds of lawsuits come into the Court saying that the states are not following federal law, then the federal agencies responsible for enforcing these laws will be too overwhelmed with cases to do their “business.” He was quoted as saying, “It’s a mass, in other words.” This is why the Court wants to take a new look at this process of lawsuits because they believe that there will be simply too many to handle. The lawyer for California Medicaid patients and care providers, Carter G. Phillips, argued that he was not fighting for this kind of expansion of litigation, however. He pushed that his intention was to only make sure that people had the right to fight to make sure that federal supremacy is maintained and their “life or death” benefits were safe. He also made the pint that federal courts have been hearing and deciding these cases for generations. However, the Court found merit in what Deputy Solicitor General Edwin S. Kneedler was saying about Medicaid being different since it was a joint enterprise managed by administrative agencies, not the courts. He also argued that he was only trying to make an exception in litigation.

The Supreme Court is not expected to make a ruling until spring of 2012 on this case and the other related cases that were also argued. However, based off of the feeling the court gave (expressed through what I read), there seems to be a good chance that the court may rule against the Medicaid patients and care-givers. They seem to be in favor of making this exception in litigation for this case, which would leave them to depend on federal officials who can only shut off federal funds entirely in this case. I kind of see this as making sense. In this time of economic turmoil and also accessibility of law to citizens, the Courts may just see countless cases like this throughout the United States. By allowed the citizens to sue, the floor will be opened to who knows how many other cases. The courts want to save as much time and energy as possible and keep the system from overflowing. So, while it is in their rights to sue the state for violating federal laws, an exception might just be made by the Supreme Court.