to enforce 42 U.S.C. § 1396a(a)(30)(A) under 42 U.S.C. § 1983. (Def.'s Opp’n at 7-8.) This is not an argument about standing but about the merits of the providers’ legal theory- 11 . See Pub.L. 103-382 (42 U.S.C. § 1320a-2); Pub.L. 103-432 (42 U.S.C. § 1320a-10). 12 . The Supreme Court did not consider the effect of this statute in Blessing, which dealt with Title IV-D of the Social Security Act. Blessing, 520 U.S. at 332, 117 S.Ct. 1353. 13 . The court respectfully notes that Congress would give greater assistance to the courts, and retain its proper authority over an important policy overnment in litigation, a state should not ordinarily be subjected to nonmutual offensive issue preclusion. See United States v. Mendoza, 464 U.S. 154, 162-63, 104 S.Ct. 568, 78 L.Ed.2d 379 (1984) (<HOLDING>); Hercules Carriers, Inc. v. Claimant Fla., 768
holding that the doctrine of issue preclusion applies in removal proceedings holding the fourteenth amendment does not apply to the actions of the federal government holding that nonmutual offensive issue preclusion does not apply against federal government holding that preclusion rules apply in 1983 actions holding that preclusion rules apply in section 1983 actions