refers to the Medicaid statute which Massachusetts used to assert that payments had been wrongfully withheld, the Court’s opinion focuses on the dichotomy between substitutionary and restitutionary relief, not on statutory authorization. See, e.g., 487 U.S. at 900-01, 108 S.Ct. at 2735-36. The Court’s reasoning in this regard appears to draw on the equitable maxim “Equity regards that as done which ought to be done.” See generally George L. Clark, Principles of Equity § 20 (1919); 1 Melville M. Bigelow, Joseph Story’s Commentaries on Equity Jurisprudence 68-69 (13th ed. 1886). An equity court seeks to restore the plaintiff to the position she would have been in had the defendant’s illegal action never taken place. Cf. Jacksonville Port Auth. v. Adams, 556 F.2d 52, 56-57 (D.C.Cir.1977) (<HOLDING>). Had EPA acted constitutionally, Hubbard would
holding that a challenge to the disbursement of attorneys fees was not equitably moot holding that challenge to oneyear order for protection was not moot even though it had expired holding review appropriate where district court had remanded case for procedural defects after 30day time limit in  1447c had expired holding a court may not award punitive damages holding that district court may award money due under a statute even though time for disbursement had expired