WPCOI Ć DyZ Dl+ی%Hq|=bbsǫ$.s"0O)RIyG4H2ߓEnv[$|y~1nS"'c{}PRS/eWpo!.ZTy9 .Jms@['4특̛#O?%d<&Ư77Bbe:M& {`0=:w`"~G;;8!Y }vD.Г,jVz1gy燒*^#!$UNE % 0(^ w@4 ! 0 m2 U$>I N UB b  0 i  0 D 1 0N 1u 0ccM T! 1&M& 01&& 0=++M--M00 0T4 0>5 0Z5 0$6 06 0a7 07 08 09U9 09 02j: 0: 0:; 0; 0_W< 0 < 0k= 0+? B*@ D3A COA D+iA 0A 0[C 06BD 0xD 0:E 0DE 0hE 0FfFU6FU>FU* G G GU<JGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGG B2IHP LaserJet 4,,,,,,0(Fa  Z6Times New Roman Regular($<, w[x[y[z{|E}~EDe+h ,3|xU\( 9Z+&Courier Regular<6X9`(*Courier 12pt10cpi- - ConsoroVejerano circumstance[sGreenlessMcClendonNoonan(e(2k$ !    =wdd=    0   _=gdd= fX k  =gdd=    1    =gdd= ` #gX fM# fXgPaymentsundertheAgreementarecontingentonmany  factors,andassigningvaluestoastate'srighttopaymentisthereforedifficult.SeeFloydv.Thompson,227F.3d1029,1038 @ (7thCir.2000)("Thefinalamounttobepaid...isunknownandunknowableatthispoint....").Thequestionpresentedbythisappealisnotquantitative,soexactamountsarenotmaterial.RhodeIslandstandstoreceiveagreatdealofmoney.#gX fd#(#$  0  (5hCEKQW]cioAutoList1IIIIIIIIIIIIIIII _ ƟX=gdd= k  =gdd=    5    =gdd= ` JudgeNoonanwouldhavereliedon1396b(d)(3)(B)(ii).  McClendon,261F.3dat1262(Noonan,J.,concurringinthe x judgment).#gX Ɵ#(O$3#37=CIQYag1.a.i.(1)(a)(i)1)a)(;3$2#  0  .3  0   _X#X XƟXXX#=gdd= k  =gdd=    2    =gdd=  ` Thislanguageisclarifiedbyregulation:   T0  Theagencymustdistributecollectionsasfollows (#(# 0  0` (#(#(a)Toitself,anamountequaltoStateMedicaidexpendituresfortheindividualonwhoserightthecollectionwasbased. ` (#` (# 0  0` (#(#(b)TotheFederalGovernment,theFederalshareoftheStateMedicaidexpenditures,minusanyincentivepaymentmadeinaccordancewith[arelatedprovision].... ` (#` (# 0  0` (#(#(c)Totherecipient,anyremainingamount....#X#XX XƟ/##gXX##  ` (#` (#  ƟXg XƟXX Ɵ42C.F.R.433.153(2000)#X#XX XƟf##gXX##. _ X k  =Gdd=    7    =Gdd= ` TheTenthCircuitinHarrisreachedthesameconclusion  abouttherelativedifficultyofthequestionsbutneverthelesshelditselfboundtoanswertheconstitutionalquestionbecauseofitspriorholdinginMartinv.Kansas,190F.3d1120(10thCir. X 1999),#GX # XGԀthatquestionsinvolvingtheEleventhAmendmentmustbe   reachedbeforeallotherlegalissuesinacase.Harris,264F.3d  at1288.TheFifthCircuitfollowsasimilarrule.UnitedStates `  exrel._Foulds_v.Tex.TechUniv.,171F.3d279,28588(5thCir. ( x 1999)#GX b# XG.Under_Parella_,thiscircuitfollowsadifferentone.  @ Severalothercircuitsappeartoagree,oratleasttoleaveopensomeroomforjudicialdiscretion.SeeTyler,2001WL1230630,at    *4(observingtheTenthCircuit'sdifficulty,andthendecidingthestatutoryquestion);McClendon,261F.3dat 1258(distinguishing `  _Seaborn_v.Fla._Dep't_ԀofCorr.,143F.3d1405(11thCir.1998), (  whichhadappearedtoannounceaholdingsimilartothatofMartin,   andreachingthestatutoryquestion);UnitedStatesexrel.Longv. h  SCSBus.&TechnicalInst.,173F.3d890(D.C.Cir.1999)(holding 0   thatafederalcourtmayreachotherquestionsbeforeanEleventhAmendmentquestionatleastifthestateinvolvedconsents,andobservingthebenefitsofdoingsowhentheEleventhAmendmentquestioniscomplex);cf.Floyd,227F.3dat1035(statingthat the X courtwouldresolvetheEleventhAmendmentissuefirst"ifitappearedinanywaypossible"thattheplaintiffscouldsuethestate,andthenconcludingthatsuchasuitwasnotpossible).#GX ,# J_ X=Gdd= k  =Gdd=    8    =Gdd= ` Evenwerewetoapplythepresumptionagainstimplied  repeal,thatpresumptioncanbeovercomebyan"_irreconciliable_conflict"betweenstatutes.MatsushitaElec.Indus.Co.v. @ Epstein,516U.S.367,381(1996)(quoting_Kremer_v.Chem.Constr. X Corp.,456U.S.461,468(1982))(internalquotationmarks   omitted).Itisimpossibletoreconcile1396k(b)'srequirementthat"theremainderof[thetobaccosettlement]shallbepaidtosuchindividual"with1396b(d)(3)(B)(ii)'spermissiontousethemoney"foranyexpendituresdeterminedappropriatebytheState."#GX #(CEKQW]cioAutoList2A.A.A.A.A.A.A.A.0.Normal _ ƟX k  =gdd=    4    =gdd= ` Somedistrictcourtshavedecided,asthedistrictcourt  concludedinthiscase,thatstatesovereignimmunitybarssuchclaims.E.g.,Clarkv._Stovall_,158F.Supp.2d1215(D._Kan_. @  2001);Cardenasv._Anzai_,128F.Supp.2d704(D.Haw.2001);  Martinv.NewMexico,197_F.R.D._Ԁ694(_D.N.M._Ԁ2000);Bartonv. x Summers,111F.Supp.2d989(M.D.Tenn.2000).Thedecisionof @ theDistrictofNewMexicoinMartinprecededtheTenthCircuit's X decisioninHarris,discussedintext;Harrisisnow,ofcourse,   thelawofthatcircuit.#gX Ɵ#<:Definition T _ ƟX=gdd= k  =gdd=    3    =gdd= ` Ourdiscussionofsimilarcasesinthisopinionisnot  exhaustiveandincludesonlythosepublishedopinionsusefultogivecontexttoourdecisiontoday.#gX Ɵ# _ X k  =Gdd=    6    =Gdd= ` StatesdonotwaivetheirEleventhAmendmentimmunity  merelybyparticipatingintheMedicaidprogram.Fla._Dep't_Ԁof x Health&Rehabilitative_Servs_.v.Fla.NursingHome_Ass'n_,450U.S. @ 147(1981)(per_curiam_).#GX # _ X=Gdd= k  =Gdd=    9    =Gdd= ` WedisregardthetensionbetweenGreenless'sargumentfor  EleventhAmendmentpurposesthatsheseeksprospectivereliefforafutureinjury,ratherthanretrospectivecompensationforapastinjury,andherargumentthatourreadingofthestatuterendersitretroactive.See_Landgraf_,511U.S.at273("Whentheintervening   statuteauthorizesoraffectstheproprietyofprospectiverelief,applicationofthenewprovisionisnotretroactive.") . #GX #<GD:Definition L , ;1` hp x (#;  8.` hp x (#886Definition('z&H1      XXX(o&H2  XXX(o&H3  XXX(&H4 XXX XXX(o&H5  XXX(o&H6  XXX20Address8SP6Blockquote , , ;1` hp x (#;   8.` hp x (#8,*CITE,dl*CODEKD<6X9`(Courier NewKXXXSE\  `&Times New RomanS42Emphasis6&)4Hyperlink            <:FollowedHype    4go2Keyboard KD<6X9`(Courier NewK XXXSE\  `&Times New RomanS<:Preformatted/%  ,Kk (#/KD<6X9`(Courier NewKXXXSE\  `&Times New RomanS/%  ,Kk (#/<:zBottom of I9:4$ ** ddI  B    ?F%2A`Arial?9;:*  dd9  XXXSE\  `&Times New RomanS  &0 d d8888'dxddd'dxd<:zTop of ForI9:4$** ddI  B    ?F%2A`Arial?9;:*  dd9  XXXSE\  `&Times New RomanS  0Kl.SampleKD<6X9`(Courier NewKSE\  `&Times New RomanS0.Strong 8dl6TypewriterKD<6X9`(Courier NewKXXXSE\  `&Times New RomanS42Variable(3$ !  :8HTML MarkupB      2 0CommentB  <6X9`(Courier New\  `&Times New Roman%2A`Arial7  `$Times NewRoman _ X k  =dd=    *    =dd= `  XXX OftheDistrictofMassachusetts,sittingbydesignation.# XX X##X # d !  _    *,X` XX*=  XXdd=8  XXdd8    X XXX @  # XX Xn##X O#IIIUnitedStatesCourtofAppeals#II#IXgXIԈ  @ #IXIXgg#I!IFortheFirstCircuit #!I!# \ !# X  \# XXX Ԉ  @<< ____________________No.011410  BLANCHEE.GREENLESS,onbehalfofherselfandallotherssimilarlysituated,  Plaintiff,Appellant,@@tt)v.@@ LINCOLNC.ALMOND,inhiscapacityasGovernoroftheStateofRhodeIsland;CHRISTINEFERGUSON,inhercapacityasDirectoroftheDepartmentofHumanServicesfortheStateofRhodeIsland;andSHELDON_WHITEHOUSE_,inhiscapacityasAttorneyGeneralfortheStateofRhodeIsland,@@ Defendants,Appellees.@@<< ____________________@@ APPEALFROMTHEUNITEDSTATESDISTRICTCOURT@@FORTHEDISTRICTOFRHODEISLAND[Hon.MaryM._Lisi_,U.S.DistrictJudge] @ @@<< ____________________ @`  @  @  @X  @ @@'BeforeLynch,CircuitJudge#XgXX X+# XXXXg# XX Xm# XXX ,# XX X# XXX #XgXX X槭# XXXXg  ЀCoffin,SeniorCircuitJudge, h  #XgXX Xt# XXXXg# XX X2# XXX andYoung,*!J #  *      ׀DistrictJudge. 0 ! @@<< ____________________* X,X` X*    Antonio_Ponvert_ԀIII,withwhomMichaelA.St.Pierre,James P#% E.Kelleher,_Revens_,_Revens_Ԁ&St.Pierre,and_Koskoff_,_Koskoff_Ԁ& $h& _Bieder_,P.C.,wereonbriefforappellant. $0 '   NeilF.X.Kelly,SpecialAssistantAttorneyGeneral,with p&!) whomSheldon_Whitehouse_,AttorneyGeneral,wasonbrieffor 8'"* appellees..,X` XX4 .  ____________________I z@,,"z{Jan{|{aru{|}uary28,200}~}1}~2@<< ____________________#XgXX X ##XXgF #XgX XXXXg   +p&/   #XgXX X~##XXg_#"8  XXd XXd8*!=  XXd XXd= `  XLYNCH,CircuitJudge .Thiscaseconcernsclaimsmadeon  theallocationofmoniestothestates,specificallyRhodeIsland,fromthe1998MasterSettlementAgreementinthetobaccolitigation. ` BlancheE.Greenlessappealsthedismissalofhersuitunder42U.S.C.1983fordeclaratoryandinjunctivereliefagainsttheGovernorofRhodeIslandandvariousotherstateofficials,allintheirofficialcapacities.GreenlessseekstorepresentallofRhodeIsland'sMedicaidrecipientswhohavesuffereddamagesfromtheuseoftobacco.SheclaimsthatfederallawrequiresRhodeIslandtopaythatclassaportionoftheproceedsfromthesettlementofitsclaimsagainstthetobaccoindustry,andthatRhodeIslandiswrongfullyconvertingwhatareessentiallyMedicaidrecoverycollections. ` ThedistrictcourtdismissedGreenless'ssuitwithoutahearingasbarredbythedoctrineofstatesovereignimmunityembodiedintheEleventhAmendment.Weaffirmthedismissaloftheaction,butondifferentgrounds,holdingthatGreenlesshasfailedtostateaclaimonwhichreliefcanbegrantedduetoarecentamendmentoftheMedicaidstatute.WedonotreachthedifficultquestionwhetheraclaimofthesortGreenlessasserts,ifprovidedbyfederallaw,wouldbebarredbytheEleventhAmendment.  &"+   I.xyyA.yyFactsyy @  ` Duringthe1990s,morethanfortyofthefiftystates,includingRhodeIsland,filedsuitsagainstthemajormanufacturersoftobaccoproducts. SeeStatev.Brown&WilliamsonTobacco  @ Corp.,No.973058(R.I.Sup.Ct.Dec.17,1998)(consentdecree    andfinaljudgment).Theexacttheoriesofrecoveryvariedfromstatetostate.Generally,thestatesallegedthatthetobaccoindustryhadmisledthepublicbyconcealingtherisksofcigarettesmokingandhadthereforecausedthestatestospendvastsumsofpublicmoneyonprovidinghealthcareforthosemadeillbytobacco. Unlikepriorattemptstoholdtobaccomanufacturers 0 liableforsmoking-relatedillnessesordeaths,thestates'suitsresultedinalucrativesettlement,recordedbytheMasterSettlementAgreement.SeeNationalAssociationofAttorneys  General,MasterSettlementAgreement,athttp://www.naag.org/tobac/  p _cigmsa.rtf_Ԁ(Nov.23,1998).AccordingtoGreenless,undertheAgreementRhodeIslandwillreceiveapproximately$1.408billion. #  1       @"  ` Theexpendituresonhealthcareonwhichthestate'ssuitsreliedaroseinsignificantpartthroughtheMedicaidprogram.TheMedicareandMedicaidprogramsarethetwolargestsourcesofpublicfundingforhealthcareintheUnitedStates. % * Medicare,whichprovideshealthcareprimarilytotheelderlyandtosomeindividualswithdisabilities,receivesfundsexclusivelyfromthefederalgovernment.Medicaid,whichprovideshealthcareprimarilytotheindigent,receivesfundsfromboththefederalgovernmentandthestates. StateMedicaidexpendituresconsume  @ largeportionsofstates'budgets;infiscalyear2000,RhodeIslandspent22.6%ofitsbudgetonMedicaid. RhodeIsland `  DepartmentofHumanServices,AnnualReport:FiscalYear2000:   RhodeIslandMedicaidProgram13,availableat 0  http://www.dhs.state.ri.us/dhs/reports/ma2000.pdf.Whenthestatessoughttorecoverfundsspentonhealthcaremadenecessarybysmoking,someoftheirallegeddamageswereMedicaidexpenditures.SostatedRhodeIsland'scomplaintatthetime.  p  ` TherecoveryofMedicaidexpendituresfromthetobaccoindustryarguablybroughtintoplaycertainaspectsofthefederalMedicaidstatute.WhenastateagreestoparticipateinMedicaidbyenactingastatute,itmustcreateaplanthatmeetsrequirementsspecifiedbyCongress.ThatstateMedicaidplanmust"providethat,asaconditionofeligibilityformedicalassistanceundertheStateplan...theindividualisrequired  y(A)toassigntheStateanyrights...topaymentformedicalcarefromanythirdparty." !42U.S.C.1396k(a)(1994). ` Moreover,whenastate,actingonanindividual'sassignmentofhisorherrights,hasrecoveredfromathirdparty compensationforstateexpenditurestoprovidehealthcarevia 0*%0 Medicaid,thestatemaynotnecessarilykeepallofthemoney.Instead,  0 ` [_s]uch_ԀpartofanyamountcollectedbytheStateunderanassignmentmadeundertheprovisionsofthissectionshallberetainedbytheStateasisnecessarytoreimburseitformedicalassistancepaymentsmadeonbehalfofanindividualwithrespecttowhomsuchassignmentwasexecuted(withappropriatereimbursementoftheFederalGovernmenttotheextentofitsparticipationinthefinancingofsuchmedicalassistance),andtheremainderofsuchamountcollected `  shallbepaidtosuchindividual.( ` (#` (# # #Id.1396k(b)(emphasisadded). #  2      ׀Afterthestateandfederal h  governmentsarereimbursed,anyexcessispaidtotheindividual,"whoisusuallyapersonoflimitedresources."45Fed.Reg.8982,8983(Feb.11,1980). ` IftheseprovisionsapplytotheMasterSettlementAgreement(RhodeIslandclaimstheydonotbecausethesuitwasbroughtnotasa1396kassignmentbutunderdifferenttheories)thenatleastsomeofthemoneythatthetobaccoindustrypaidthestatesundertheAgreementbelongstothefederalgovernmentasappropriatereimbursementwithinthemeaningof1396k(b).If,aswell,thestatesreceivedmoremoneyfromthetobaccoindustry  X# undertheAgreementthanwasnecessarytoreimburseboththestateandfederalgovernmentsformedicalassistancepaymentsmadeonbehalfofsmokers,thentheremainderbelongstothesmokersonwhosebehalfthosepaymentsweremade.Greenless'sclaimrestsonthistheory.   @  ` Congresshasrecentlyamendedthestatute.The1999EmergencySupplementalAppropriationsActexemptsfromthenormalproceduresbywhichthefederalgovernmenttakesitsshareofstaterecoveries"anyamountrecoveredorpaidtoaStateaspartofthecomprehensivesettlementofNovember1998betweenmanufacturersoftobaccoproducts...andStateAttorneysGeneral."Pub.L.No.106-31,3031,113Stat.57,103-04(1999)(codifiedat42U.S.C.1396b(d)(3)(B)(_i_)(Supp.V1999)).Itfurthermoreprovides,withanexceptionirrelevanttothiscase,that"aStatemayuseamountsrecoveredorpaidtotheStateaspartofacomprehensive...settlement...describedin[theprior]clause...foranyexpendituresdeterminedappropriatebytheState."Id.,113Stat.   at104(codifiedat42U.S.C.1396b(d)(3)(B)(ii)). ` Thepartiesagreethatthisnewlanguageremovesanyclaimtothestates'tobaccosettlementmoneybythefederalgovernment. Thequestionpresentedbythisappealiswhetherthe #@( languagealsoremovesanypossibleclaimtothatmoneyunderfederallawbytheindividualswhoseillnessescausedthestatestospendthemoney.  (#. xxB.Historyxx   ` GreenlessfiledthissuitintheDistrictofRhodeIslandagainstthevariousdefendantsintheirofficialcapacities,claimingthatRhodeIslandmustpayherandthemembersofherclasstheamountbywhichthetobaccosettlementexceedsitsactualcosts. Sheallegedthisamounttobesubstantial. Forhercause    ofactionshereliedon42U.S.C.1983anditsbroadrangingremediesforviolationsoffederalrightsundercolorofstatelaw. SheaskedfordeclaratoryandinjunctiverelieftocompelRhode 0  Island'sofficialstopayhertheallegedexcess.    ` Thedefendantsmovedtodismissontwogrounds.First,theyarguedthatGreenless'ssuitisbarredundertheEleventhAmendmentbystatesovereignimmunityasasuitfor,ineffect,moneydamagesagainstthetreasuryofastate. Second,theyargued P thatGreenlesshasnocauseofactionunder1983becauseherrightsundertheMedicaidstatutehavenotbeenandwillnotbeviolated. Greenlessinresponseclaimedthathersuitdoesnotrun   afouloftheEleventhAmendmentbecausethestateisnotaparty,onlystateofficials,andbecausesheseeksonlyprospectivereliefpermissibleunderthedoctrineofExparteYoung,209U.S.123 `"& (1908),asexplainedinEdelmanv.Jordan,415U.S.651(1974). #@( Shealsorespondedtothedefendants'statutoryarguments.OnFebruary26,2001,thedistrictcourtdismissedthecaseinaseven-pageopinionaddressingonlythequestionofstatesovereignimmunity.Greenlessv.Almond,C.A.No.00037ML(_D.R.I._ԀFeb.26, 0*%0 2001). Thisappealfollowed.Thedefendantsmakeonappealboth +'2 setsofargumentspresentedtothedistrictcourtinsupportofthejudgment.  II.7 ` Ourreviewofthedistrictcourt'sjudgmentinthiscaseisdenovo.SeeMillsv.Maine,118F.3d37,41(1stCir.1997)  @ (reviewingdenovoadismissalonEleventhAmendmentgrounds);_Garita_ԀHotelLtd._P'ship_v._Ponce_ԀFed.Bank,_F.S.B._,958F.2d15, `  17(1stCir.1992)(sameforfailuretostateaclaim).Asalways,wemayaffirmadistrictcourt'sjudgmentonanygroundssupportedbytherecord.Doev._Anrig_,728F.2d30,32(1stCir.1984).  Moreover,thiscircuithasheldthatfederalcourtsneednotanswerquestionsofstatesovereignimmunityundertheEleventhAmendmentbeforeansweringother,easierlegalquestionsthatwoulddecideacase._Parella_v.Ret.Bd.oftheR.I.Employees'Ret._Sys_.,173 P F.3d46,5357(1stCir.1999)(decliningtoapplytocasesinvolvingtheEleventhAmendmenttheruleofSteelCo.v.Citizens  p foraBetterEnvironment,523U.S.83(1998),inwhich"amajority   ofjusticesrejectedtheuseof'hypotheticaljurisdiction'").L (3LwwA.EleventhAmendmentandconstitutionalavoidance ww  $   ` Otherplaintiffshavebroughtcasessimilartothisone `"& againstnumerousotherstates.Nonehaveyetsucceeded.! #  3      ׀Theonly #@( circuitcourts_ #  4      _ԀtoaddresstheEleventhAmendmentquestion,the % * FifthandTenthCircuits,haveheldthattheAmendmentwouldnotpreventtheplaintiffsinacasesuchasthisonefromobtainingtherelieftheyseek,ifthatreliefwereavailableunderfederallaw.Harrisv.Owens,264F.3d1282,128994(10thCir.2001) `  (holdingthatthereliefrequestedispermissibleunderthedoctrineofExparteYoung);Watsonv.Texas,261F.3d436,44043    (5thCir.2001)(holdingthatTexaswaiveditssovereignimmunityinthesettlementagreement). ` Everycourttoconsiderthequestionhas,however,decidedthat1396k(b)doesnotapplytothestatetobaccosettlements,eitherbecausethesettlementsarenotrecoveriesofthesortgovernedbythatsectionasageneralmatterorbecause1396b(d)(3)(B)(ii)specificallyexemptsthesettlements.See p Tylerv.Douglas,No.007839,2001WL1230630(2dCir.Oct.16, P 2001)(relyingon1396b(d)(3)(B)(ii));Harris,264F.3dat1294  97(same);McClendonv.Ga._Dep't_Ԁof_Cmty_.Health,261F.3d1252,  p 125962(11thCir.2001)(relyingon1396k(b));@ #  5      ׀Floydv.   Thompson,227F.3d1029,103538(7thCir.2000)(relyingon @" 1396k(b)andonWisconsinassignmentlaw);_Skillings_v.Illinois,  $ 121F.Supp.2d1235(C.D.Ill.2000)(followingFloydwhile `"& _applyingIllinoislaw);seealsoStatev.SuperiorCourt,99Cal.  Rptr.2d735(Cal.App.2000)(interpretingportionofstatecodeimplementingfederalstatutoryscheme);Brownv.State,617N.W.2d   421,42527(Minn.Ct.App.2000)(same). ` Insummary,thecourtsthathaveconsideredquestionsofstatesovereignimmunitysimilartothosepresentedbythiscasehavesplit,andthecircuitcourtsamongthisgrouphaveheldtheEleventhAmendmentnottobarclaimssuchasGreenless's.Thosethathaveconsideredstatutoryquestionssimilartothoseherearesofarunanimous,althoughdifferentcourtshavefolloweddifferentreasoningtothesameconclusion. ` Wedonotdecideanyquestionofstatesovereignimmunitytoday.Wewill,however,sketchtheoutlinesofthequestiononthefactsofthiscaseinordertoexplainourreasonsforavoidingit.AsageneralmattertheseveralstatesareimmuneundertheEleventhAmendmentfromprivatesuitinthefederalcourts,absenttheirconsent.# #  6      ׀Amongtheexceptionstothisruleisthedoctrine   ofExparteYoung,209U.S.123(1908),whichallowsaplaintiffto @" enforceaclaimoffederalrightbyobtaininginjunctiveordeclaratoryreliefagainstastateofficerintheofficer'sofficialcapacity.InEdelmanv.Jordan,415U.S.651(1974),the #@( SupremeCourtexplainedthatthepurposeofthisexceptionistopreventcontinuingviolationsoffederallaw,butnottoremedy '`", pastviolations.Therefore,anExparteYoungplaintiffmayobtain  prospective,butnotretrospective,relief.Seeid.at66465;see @ alsoIdahov.Coeurd'AleneTribe,521U.S.261,294(1997)    (O'Connor,J.,concurringinpartandconcurringinthejudgment)("[A]Youngsuitisavailablewhereaplaintiffallegesanongoing  @ violationoffederallaw,andwherethereliefsoughtis    prospectiveratherthanretrospective.");id.at298(Souter,J., `  dissenting)(observingthat,giventhedispositionoftheJusticesinthatcase,"JusticeO'Connor'sviewisthecontrollingone"). ` Greenlessclaimstoseekaprospectiveremedyforanallegedlyongoingviolationoffederallawthatwillrecureachtimethestateactuallyreceivesaninstallmentpaymentofthetobaccosettlement.ThedefendantsclaimsheseeksretrospectivecompensationfortheallegedviolationthatthestatecommittedwhenitreachedagreementwiththetobaccoindustrywithoutprovidingthataportionoftheproceedswouldgotoGreenlessandherclass.BecauseoftheSupremeCourt'srecentreinvigorationofthedoctrineofstatesovereignimmunity,see,e.g.,SeminoleTribe @" v.Florida,517U.S.44(1996);Aldenv.Maine,527U.S.706  $ (1999), privateplaintiffs'abilitytoenforcecongressionally `"& enactedrestraintsonthestates'useofmanytypesoffundsmaywellturnonjustsuchquestionstoadegreefewreadersofEdelman % * wouldhavepredictedwhenthatcasewasdecided. ` Itisnot,however,theroleofthefederalcourtstoanswerlegalquestionsunlessspecificcasesneedanswers.Thisprincipleapplieswithspecialforcetocomplexquestionsof +'2 constitutionallaw,sothatcourtsoftenavoidsuchquestionsbychoosingtofocusonotheraspectsofacasethatadequatelydisposeofthecontroversybetweentheparties.SeeAshwanderv.   Tenn.ValleyAuth.,297U.S.288,347(1936)(Brandeis,J., `  concurring)("TheCourtwillnotpassuponaconstitutionalquestionalthoughproperlypresentedbytherecord,ifthereisalsopresentsomeothergrounduponwhichthecasemaybedisposedof.");U.S.I.Props.Corp.v.M.D.Constr.Co.,230F.3d489,495   (1stCir.2000)(avoidingacomplexEleventhAmendmentquestioninfavorofasimplerstatutorysubjectmatterjurisdictionquestion);  Parella,173F.3dat56. Inthiscase,theconstitutionalquestion P isdifficult;but,aswediscussbelow,atleastonestatutoryquestioniseasyanddisposescompletelyofGreenless'ssuit.Wethereforebypasstheconstitutionalquestion,ashavetheSecond,Seventh,andEleventhCircuits,infavoroftheeasierquestion  whetherplaintiffshavestatedaclaimonwhichreliefmaybegranted. #  7      ׀SeeTyler,2001WL1230630,at*4;Floyd,227F.3dat   1034;McClendon,261F.3dat 1258.Werecommendthiscoursetothe  districtcourtsofthiscircuitasthewiserapproach.  @ vvB.Statutoryinterpretationvv    ` TherearetworeasonstodoubtwhethertheamendedMedicaidstatutewillsupportGreenless'sclaim.ThefirstreasonisthatitisnotclearwhetheranyofthemoneyrecoveredbyRhodeIslandismoneytowhichGreenlessandherclasscanstakeaclaimunder1396k(b)asitstoodatthetimeofthesettlements.See   McClendon,261F.3dat125962;Watson,261F.3dat44345.The 0  secondreason,andtheoneonwhichwebaseourholding,is1396b(d)(3)(B)(ii),addedbytheEmergencySupplementalAppropriationsActof1999,Pub.L.No.10631,113Stat.57,10304(1999).WefindpersuasivethereasoningofTyler,inwhichthe p SecondCircuitheldthat1396b(d)(3)(B)(ii)wasplainandforeclosedasuitsimilartothepresentone.Tyler,2001WL  1230630,at*58.WeagreewiththeSecondCircuitthatthefundsdescribedinthatsectionasavailable"foranyexpendituresdeterminedappropriatebytheState"cannotsimultaneouslybeowedtoMedicaidrecipients.Id.at*6(quoting1396b(d)(3)(B)(ii)).  $  ` Greenlessmakestwoargumentsagainstthisreadingof1396b(d)(3)(B)(ii)basedontraditionalprinciplesofstatutoryinterpretation.First,sheclaimsthatthereadingviolatesthe % * presumptionagainstimpliedrepeal.Second,sheclaimsthatthereadingviolatesthepresumptionagainstgivinglegislationretroactiveeffect.Althoughthesetwopresumptionsarewell-knownlandmarksofthisareaofthelaw,neitherappliestothiscase. ` The"impliedrepeal"argumentisanoddonebecauseatissueisnotwhetherCongresstotallyrepealed1396k,butwhetheritintendedtocarveouttobaccosettlementmoniesfromthereachofthatprovision.ButwewilluseGreenless'sterminology.Shearguesthattheamendmentonlywaivesthefederalgovernment'sshareofthesettlementanddoesnotaffectanyrightsofindividuals.Notso.Thepresumptionagainstimpliedrepeal,althoughofparticularforcewhen,ashere,appliedtoappropriationsriders,neverthelessturnsonlegislativeintent. p UnitedStatesv.Will,449U.S.200,22124(1980)("[W]hen P Congressdesirestosuspendorrepealastatuteinforce,'[t]herecanbenodoubtthat...itcouldaccomplishitspurposebyanamendmenttoanappropriationbill,orotherwise.'"(quotingUnited   Statesv.Dickerson,310U.S.554,555(1940))(secondandthird @" alterationsinWill)).Indeed,thepresumptionresultsfrom  $ certainassumptionsthatcourtsmakeaboutthelegislativeprocess: 0 ` Courtsdonotlightlyassumethatonestatutehasimplicitlyrepealedanother.Thisprincipleisaproductofasetofbeliefsaboutthelegislativeprocess--inparticular,abeliefthatCongress,focusedasitusuallyisonaparticularproblem,shouldnotbeunderstoodtohaveeliminatedwithoutspecificconsiderationanotherprogramthatwaslikelytheproductofsustainedattention.d d ` (#` (# C.R.Sunstein,InterpretingStatutesintheRegulatoryState,103 *H&1 Harv.L.Rev.405,475(1989)(footnoteomitted).Theseconcerns ,'3 havelessforcewhere,ashere,Congresswasrespondingtoarecentevent,theMasterSettlementAgreement,andwasclearinitslanguage.TheonlyevenarguabledoubtiswhetherthatrepealcoveredMedicaidrecipients'possibleclaimsaswellasthefederalgovernment's.Inourviewtheplainstatutorylanguagemeansboth. #  8           ` Thepresumptionagainstretroactivityalsodoesnotaffecttheresultinthiscase.ItistruethatasageneralmatterCongressmustspeakclearlytomakeitslegislationretroactive.Landgrafv.USIFilmProds.,511U.S.244,280  (1994).% #  9      ׀Whateverthepropercharacterizationoftherelief P Greenlessseeksinthiscase,Congressmadeitsintentclearintheamendment,which"appliestoallfundsreceivedundertheMasterSettlementAgreement,whetherpast,present,orfuture."Harris, P 264F.3dat1296.    p III.k ` Toavoidtheunnecessaryresolutionofadifficultconstitutionalquestion,wehaveassessedthemeritsofGreenless'scaseandhavefoundthatshehasfailedtostateaclaimuponwhichreliefmaybegranted.Therefore,althoughwedonotreachthereasoningofthedistrictcourt'sopinion,itsjudgmentdismissingthecaseisaffirmed.