the ICF/[DD] program,” and from “paying providers for services at ICF/[DD] cluster facilities in a manner other than as provided for in a rate plan” that “pay[s] to each provider of ICF/[DD] services at cluster facilities the full Medicaid rate for that facility” and affords “each provider at cluster facilities all rights and protections accompanying a rate plan governing ICF/ [DD] facilities.” The injunction order specifically declined to modify the State’s existing plan by imposing new rates, but rather permitted Defendants themselves to file a new plan “which complies with the substantive requirements of’ the Medicaid Act. This Circuit has held repeatedly that “obey the law” injunctions are unenforceable. See, e.g., Burton v. City of Belle Glade, 178 F.3d 1175, 1200 (11th Cir.1999) (<HOLDING>); Payne v. Travenol Labs., Inc., 565 F.2d 895,
holding that injunction which prohibited municipality from discriminating on the basis of race in its annexation decisions would do no more than instruct the city to obey the law  and therefore was invalid holding that a defendant may not be convicted of multiple offenses under  922g on the basis that he belonged to more than one prohibited class or that he simultaneously possessed more than one firearm holding that the court properly refused to instruct on an issue for which no evidence was offered holding that the failure to instruct on a definition or to amplify an element is not a failure to instruct on an essential element holding that the failure to properly instruct the jury on the burden of proof required a new trial