political question — when and by whom suit may be brought — by directly stating which provisions give rise to a claim under section 1983, and for whom, rather than commenting, in vague language, on particular approaches adopted by the Supreme Court to divine Congress’ unexpressed intent. 14 . Plaintiffs contend that this holding of the district court precludes the defendant from arguing that Section 30(A) does not create an enforceable right. (CMA's Mot. at 19-21.) The court, however, declines to find preclusion. First, the district court’s June 28, 1991 decision in Orthopaedic Hospital came before the Supreme Court's decisions in Suter, Blessing, and Gonzaga, which refined the enforceable rights analysis. See Steen v. John Hancock Mut. Life Ins. Co., 106 F.3d 904, 914 (9th Cir.1997) (<HOLDING>). Second, because of the unique position of the
holding consent is irrelevant and estoppel does not apply when subject matter jurisdiction is in question holding that collateral estoppel does not apply when there is a significant change in the legal climate holding collateral estoppel elements met considering changed circumstances in the context of an exception to the general rule of collateral estoppel holding that apprendi does not apply on collateral review holding that res judicata and collateral estoppel apply to arbitration award