in Westside Mothers misinterpreted language from the Supreme Court’s opinions in Pennhurst and Blessing. In Pennhurst, the Court used contract law as an analogy to describe the legal relationship between the federal gov ernment and participating states created by the Medicaid program. “[Legislation enacted pursuant to the spending power is much in the nature of a contract: in return for federal funds, the States agree to comply with federally imposed conditions.” Pennhurst, 451 U.S. at 17, 101 S.Ct. 1531 (emphasis added). In his concurrence in Blessing, Justice Scalia further drew upon the contract analogy employed by the Court in Pennhurst. Blessing, 520 U.S. at 349, 117 S.Ct. 1353 (Scalia, J., concurring). As the Sixth Circuit readily recognized, the Court 502, 30 L.Ed.2d 448 (1971) (<HOLDING>). This Court has applied these cases to
recognizing that the supremacy clause does not of its own force create rights recognizing that the supremacy clause is not a source of any federal rights holding the illinois statute at issue in templeton 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 an illinois statute and regulation that conflicted with the social security act invalid under the supremacy clause