“as nothing more than contracts.” Like the Sixth Circuit, we refuse to make that leap, as it is unsupported by the applicable ease law. See Blessing, 520 U.S. at 329, 117 S.Ct. 1353 (recognizing viability of § 1983 action brought under Ex parte Young for violation of federal rights created under Spending Clause programs); Wilder v. Va. Hosp. Ass’n, 496 U.S. 498, 110 S.Ct. 2510, 110 L.Ed.2d 455 (1990) (recognizing viability of § 1983 claim for violation of federal right involving federal-state Medicaid program). Second, in an analogous context, the Supreme Court has specifically held that, under the Supremacy Clause, federal Spending Clause legislation trumps conflicting state statutes or regulations. See Blum v. Bacon, 457 U.S. 132, 145-46, 102 S.Ct. 2355, 72 L.Ed.2d 728 (1982) (<HOLDING>); Carleson v. Remillard, 406 U.S. 598, 604, 92
recognizing that the supremacy clause is not a source of any federal rights holding an illinois statute and regulation that conflicted with the social security act invalid under the supremacy clause holding the provisions of a new york welfare program that conflicted with federal regulations under the social security act invalid under the supremacy clause holding the illinois statute at issue in templeton invalid under the supremacy clause holding a california regulation that conflicted with the social security act invalid under the supremacy clause