The Eighth Circuit Court of Appeals affirmed a federal district court’s order dismissing the appellant’s complaint against Nebraska Department of Health and Human Services (NDHHS) officials alleging that the notice the appellant received from NDHHS terminating her Medicaid coverage violated due process; the court held that the appellant had not alleged an ongoing violation of the law and thus the relief she sought was barred by the Eleventh Amendment to the US Constitution. Filyaw v. Corsi,150 F.4th 936 (8th Cir. Aug. 27, 2025).
In 2020, Gillian Filyaw obtained Medicaid benefits administered by the NDHHS. In April 2024, Gillian received a notice from NDHHS that she was no longer eligible for Medicaid coverage because her income exceeded the standards and that she could request a fair hearing within 90 days. The notice stated that if she requested an appeal within 10 days, NDHHS would not take adverse action until a decision was made at a fair hearing. Gillian did not appeal, and her Medicaid coverage ended in May 2024.
In June 2024, Gillian filed an action against NDHHS officials in their official capacities under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 for herself and a class of Nebraskans who had or would in the future receive a written notice from NDHHS that it proposed to terminate their Medicaid eligibility because their income exceeded the standards. She sought certification as a class action, a declaration that NDHHS’s notice violated due process and thus was unconstitutional, and a preliminary and permanent injunction ordering NDHHS to reinstate her, the proposed class’s, and the future class’s property interests in Medicaid coverage until a notice that met constitutional due process requirements was provided. The district court granted NDHHS’s motion to dismiss the complaint. Gillian appealed.
The Eighth Circuit Court of Appeals noted that an unconsenting state is generally immune under the Eleventh Amendment to the US Constitution from suits in federal court brought by either its own citizens or citizens from other states, but that suits seeking injunctive and declaratory relief against state officers—in their individual capacities—based on ongoing violations of federal law are not barred. However, the court also stated that the exception is narrow and requires a plaintiff to allege an ongoing violation of federal law and seek prospective—not retrospective—relief.
In a case of first impression, the court held that Gillian had not alleged an ongoing violation of federal law but was experiencing the effects of the allegedly unconstitutional pretermination notice. The only alleged violation of federal law was the discrete violation that occurred when Gillian received the notice—a completed act that was not repeated. Although Gillian did not experience the effects of the allegedly unconstitutional notice until the loss of her Medicaid benefits, she failed to allege an ongoing violation of federal law but only sought a remedy for a past violation. Further, her assertion that she faced an imminent risk of receiving the same deficient notice in the future was insufficient to show a real likelihood that her due process rights would be violated in the future: She was no longer enrolled in Medicaid and had not alleged that she would be eligible for it if she applied.
The court also determined that Gillian’s request for a declaration that the notice provided by NDHHS and an injunction reinstating her Medicaid enrollment were retrospective in nature and barred under the Eleventh Amendment: There was no ongoing violation and thus no prospective injunction that a federal court could issue. The limited exception to sovereign immunity did not allow a judgment against a state official declaring that they had engaged in a past violation of federal law. As a result, the court affirmed the district court’s order.
Subscribe to the Knowledge Bank.
