California State Foster Parent Ass'n v. Wagner · 624 F.3d 974

holding that the court may "give deference to a reasonable methodology employed by the State" for calculating costs, and that, even with such deference, "the absence of a uniform federal methodology for setting rates 'does not render the [statute] unenforceable by a court' " (quoting Wilder , 496 U.S. at 519, 110 S.Ct. 2510 )

How later courts described this case

holding that the court may "give deference to a reasonable methodology employed by the State" for calculating costs, and that, even with such deference, "the absence of a uniform federal methodology for setting rates 'does not render the [statute] unenforceable by a court' " (quoting Wilder , 496 U.S. at 519, 110 S.Ct. 2510 )
holding that 15 the court may “give deference to a reasonable methodology employed by the 16 State” for calculating costs, and that, even with such deference, “the absence of a 17 uniform federal methodology for setting rates ‘does not render the [statute] 18 unenforceable by a court” (quoting Wilder, 496 U.S. at 519 )
holding that foster parents may bring a § 1983 claim to enforce the right “to foster care maintenance payments from the State that cover the cost of the expenses enumerated in § 675(4)(A)”
distinguishing AACWA from statute at issue in Gonzaga and stating that § 672 of the AACWA, which provides for foster care maintenance payments, “focuses squarely on the individuals protected, rather than the entities regulated”

Written by the judges who cited it.

The opinion

CALLAHAN, Circuit Judge,

concurring:

I concur because I agree that the application to this case of the three-part test set forth by the Supreme Court in Blessing v. Freestone, 520 U.S. 329, 340-41 , 117 S.Ct. 1353 , 137 L.Ed.2d 569 (1997), is controlled by our opinion in Price v. City of Stockton, 390 F.3d 1105 (9th Cir.2004). Were I writing on a blank slate, I would not find that there is the requisite “unambiguously conferred right” for a private action under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 . See Gonzaga University v. Doe, 536 U.S. 273, 283 , 122 S.Ct. 2268 , 153 L.Ed.2d 309 (2002).