Reagan did not say that the States no longer had the power to regulate health care planning when it impacted interstate commerce. Rather, the NHPRDA was repealed because the federal government was ill equipped to impose such requirements. The States still could individually decide whether to require CON licenses or leave health care planning to the market. Taking together the evidence of Congressional intent and the States’ reliance on the NHPRDA when they passed their CON laws, the Court concludes that the repeal of the NHPRDA removed only the requirement and not the authorization for State CON laws. Defendants met their burden of showing that Congress authorized Washington’s PCI CON regulations. Those regulations are immune from dorman . 331, 102 S.Ct. 1096, 71 L.Ed.2d 188 (1982) (<HOLDING>); Sporhase v. Nebraska ex rel. Douglas, 458
holding that the federal power act did not evince an intent to permit states to prohibit export of hydroelectric power out of state recognizing a distinction between the power of a federal court to hear statelaw claims and the discretionary exercise of that power holding that the recognition power is not limited to a determination of the government to be recognized but rather includes the power to take actions without which the power of recognition might be thwarted holding that the states allegation that the congressional act at issue that went beyond the power of congress and impinged on that of the state  did not suffice as a basis for invoking an exercise of judicial power holding states in exercising the federal trust power over indian tribes pursuant to a federal statute authorizing them to do so may enact legislation that would be an otherwise unconstitutional exercise of state power