Home Menu ↓
Clicking on our sponsor links helps insure continued free access to this website.
Please support our efforts by visiting our sponsors:

 

Frew v. Hawkins

Docket No.: 02-628
Argued: October 7, 2003
Decided: January 14, 2004

Topics:

Amendment 11: Eleventh Amendment, Federalism, Natural Resources, Article I, Civil Procedure, Clean Air Act, Due Process, EPA, Eighth Amendment, Eleventh Amendment, Environmental Protection Agency, Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, Medicaid, Medicare, Supremacy Clause, abuse of discretion, immunity from suit, judicial review, property rights, sovereign immunity

PartyNames: Linda Frew, on Behalf of Her Daughter, Carla Frew, et al. v. Albert Hawkins, Commissioner, Texas Health and Human Services Commission, et al.
Petitioner: Linda Frew, on Behalf of Her Daughter, Carla Frew, et al.
Respondent: Albert Hawkins, Commissioner, Texas Health and Human Services Commission, et al.

Court Below: United States Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit
Citation: CA 5, 300 F.3d 530. QUESTIONS PRESENTED This case involves the Early and Peri odic Screening Diagnosis and Treatment(EPSDT) component of the Medicaid Act. 42 U.S.C. §§ 1396a(a)(43); 1396d(r). Another case pending before this Court also involves EPSDT. Haveman v. WestsideMothers, No.02-277 . If the Court grants a writ of certiorari in that case to address questions related to this case, the Petitioner-children ask the Court to suspend this case pending resolution of the other.
Supreme Court Docket

Linda Frew, on Behalf of Her Daughter, Carla Frew, et al.
v.
Albert Hawkins, Commissioner, Texas Health and Human Services Commission, et al.
540 U.S. 431 (2004)
Consideration Limited:

Limited to questions 1 and 2 presented by the petition.

Question Presented:

This case involves the Early and Peri odic Screening Diagnosis and Treatment(EPSDT) component of the Medicaid Act. 42 U.S.C. §§ 1396a(a)(43); 1396d(r). Another case pending before this Court also involves EPSDT. Haveman v. WestsideMothers, No.02-277 . If the Court grants a writ of certiorari in that case to address questions related to this case, the Petitioner-children ask the Court to suspend thiscase pending resolution of the other. I. Do State officials waive Eleventh Am endment immunity by urging the districtcourt to adopt a consent decree when the decree is based on federal law and specifically provides for th e district court's ongoing supervision of the officials'decree compliance? 2. Does the Eleventh Amendment bar a district court from enforcing a consentdecree entered into by State officials unless the plaintiffs show that the "decree violation is also a violation of a federal right" remediable under § 1983 ? 3. Does State officials' failure to provi de services required by the Medicaid Act'sEPSDT provisions violate rights that Medicaid recipients may enforce pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983? See 42 U.S.C. §§ 1396a(a)(43); 1396d(r). CERT. GRANTED: 3/10/03Limited to questions 1 and 2 presented by the petition.

Question:

Do states forfeit 11th Amendment protection when they enter into a consent decree under federal law in federal court? And must states violate federal law, not just the consent agreement, in order to be subject to suit in federal court?

Note:

. CA 5, 300 F.3d 530.

Frew v. Hawkins
ORAL ARGUMENT

October 7, 2003

Holding: reversed
Decision: Decision: 9 votes for Frew, 0 vote(s) against
Vote: 9-0
Opinion By: Justice Anthony M. Kennedy

Frew v. Hawkins
Case Documents

1Opinion in Frew v. Hawkins
2Opinion in Frew v. Hawkins
3Slip Opinion in Frew v. Hawkins
Additional documents for this case are pending review.