prior to the termination of funding by the state. It is clear, however, that the answer to this question would be no, if Congress has otherwise provided a remedy for the enforcement of the statute within the statute itself. See Bonano v. E. Caribbean Airline Corp., 365 F.3d 81, 85 (1st Cir.2004)(“[T]he scheme of enforcement actually spelled out in the Act counsels persuasively against implying a private right of action.”) This Court will now consider whether § 9915 provides a statutory scheme for agency review such that it suggests that Congress, by writing it into the statute, precluded private enforcement rights for eligible agencies, thereby preventing agencies from bringing a § 1983 claim. See Alexander v. Sandoval, 532 U.S. 275, 291, 121 S.Ct. 1511, 1522, 149 L.Ed.2d 517 (2001)(<HOLDING>). The Family Educational Rights and Privacy Act
holding that title vii of the civil rights act of 1964 provides the exclusive remedy for claims of employment discrimination by federal agencies holding that physician was an independent contractor and thus could not sue hospital under title vii of the civil rights act of 1964 holding there is no private right of action to enforce disparateimpact regulations brought under title vi of the civil rights act of 1964 in part because of the enforcement scheme congress provided in that statute holding that congress intended for idea to be interpreted consistent with fee provisions of statutes such as title vii of the civil rights act of 1964 recognizing that title vi of the civil rights act of 1964 and title ix of the educational amendments of 1972 created individual federal rights because those statutes were phrased with an unmistakable focus on the benefitted class