Likewise, the Supreme Court characterized Medicaid as a "program...[that] provides joint federal and state funding of medical care for individuals who cannot afford to pay their own medical costs."

A state-law claim raises a substantial question of federal law when the federal issue is: "(1) necessarily raised,(2) actually disputed,(3) substantial, and (4) capable of resolution in federal court without disrupting the federal-state balance approved by Congress."

The fact that a complaint refers to federal law, however, does not mean that it necessarily raises a federal issue.

The mere fact that the Louisiana Medicaid program is jointly funded by the federal government and the State is not sufficient to raise a substantial issue of federal law

Because the first requirement of Grable is not satisfied, the Court need not address the remaining parts of the test.[7] See

—noting that "the federal court may examine only that which `necessarily appears in the plaintiff's statement of his own claim'in assessing whether there is jurisdiction over the action

Under that rule, "federal jurisdiction exists only when a federal question is presented on the face of the plaintiff's properly pleaded complaint."

As mentioned above, "post-Grable decisions, including Empire HealthChoice..., hold that a federal role in insurance is not enough to establish that a state-law suit really arises under federal law."

Alternatively, such allegations, even if they were construed as asserting "that the defendant's conduct also contravened federal law," may have been included merely "for atmospheric reasons."

In determining whether a claim arises under federal law for purposes of 28 USC § 1331, courts apply the "well-pleaded complaint rule

[PDF] Tangled Up in Procedure: The State and Local Climate Cases After Baltimore …