Wagner

concurring:

I concur because I agree that the application to this case of the three-part test set forth by the Supreme Court in Blessing v. Freestone, 520 U.S. 329, 340-41 , 117 S.Ct. 1353 , 137 L.Ed.2d 569 (1997), is controlled by our opinion in Price v. City of Stockton, 390 F.3d 1105 (9th Cir.2004). Were I writing on a blank slate, I would not find that there is the requisite “unambiguously conferred right” for a private action under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 . See Gonzaga University v. Doe, 536 U.S. 273, 283 , 122 S.Ct. 2268 , 153 L.Ed.2d 309 (2002).

ORDER

The Opinion filed August 30, 2010, slip op. 13015, and appearing at 620 F.3d 1115 , is amended as follows:

OPINION

The federal Child Welfare Act (“CWA” or “the Act”) provides money to state governments to pay for children’s foster care and adoption assistance programs. 42 U.S.C. § 670 et seq. The CWA spells out the specific foster care provider expenses that states’ payments are supposed to cover. See 42 U.S.C. §§ 672 (a) and 675(4)(A). The states then distribute the funds to the actual families and institutions that provide care.

In California, foster parents have become concerned because the State’s payments are not covering their costs to the extent allegedly required under the federal law. Plaintiffs in this case are three associations representing individual foster parents in the State of California: the California State Foster Parent Association, the California State Care Providers Association, and Legal Advocates for Permanent Parenting (collectively, “Foster Parents”). They brought this suit against officials of the State of California (“the State”) under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 claiming a violation of their federal right to payments under the CWA and seeking…