42 U.S.C. § 1320a–2 — Effect of failure to carry out State plan
submitted 91 years ago by Pub. L. 103-382 to r/title-42-THE-PUBLIC-HEALTH-AND-WELFARE · 126 words · no verdicts yet
A provision in this chapter is not unenforceable merely because it appears in a section requiring a State plan or specifying its contents. The section changes private-enforcement law only in the limited way stated and preserves Suter v. Artist M.’s holding about section 671(a)(15).
In an action brought to enforce a provision of this chapter, such provision is not to be deemed unenforceable because of its inclusion in a section of this chapter requiring a State* plan or specifying the required contents of a State plan. This section is not intended to limit or expand the grounds for determining the availability of private actions to enforce State plan requirements other than by overturning any such grounds applied in Suter v. Artist M., 112 S. Ct. 1360 (1992), but not applied in prior Supreme Court decisions respecting such enforceability; provided, however, that this section is not intended to alter the holding in Suter v. Artist M. that section 671(a)(15) of this title is not enforceable in a private right of action.
Source credit: (Aug. 14, 1935, ch. 531, title XI, § 1123, as added Pub. L. 103–382, title V, § 555(a), Oct. 20, 1994, 108 Stat. 4057.)
- 1935Enacted · Pub. L. 103-382 · 108 Stat. 4057
A history note hasn’t been published yet. The record shows enactment by Pub. L. 103-382 on 1935-08-14.
all 0 arguments · sorted by: best
no arguments yet — make the first case