In determining whether Saint Anthony Hospital has a right to sue to enforce the prompt payment rule, should the court of appeals have treated Wilder as relevant and, based upon that precedent, as well as Gonzaga and Talevski, upheld the Hospital's right to sue the State under 42 U.S.C. § 1983?

This Court has granted a writ of certiorari in Medina v. Planned Parenthood South Atlantic , No. 23-1275, and its decision in that case will likely decide whether Wilder v. Virginia Hospital Ass’n , 496 U.S. 498 (1990), remains good law in cases seeking to assert individual rights to sue under Spending Clause statutes. The Court’s Medina decision will likely decide the outcome in this case, which has sharply divided the Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit, as reflected in its three opinions—all with dissents—the last en banc. All address whether Petitioner Saint Anthony Hospital may sue the State to enforce a requirement of federal Medicaid law to pay providers 90% of completed claims within 30 days of submission and 99% within 90 days. The continued viability of Wilder within the analytical framework of Health and Hospital Corp. of Marion County v. Talevski , 599 U.S. 166 (2023), and Gonzaga University v. Doe , 536 U.S. 273 (2002), is central to the disagreements that have generated the conflicting opinions in this case. Therefore, the sole question framed by this Petition is the same as in Medina, but in relation to a different provision of federal Medicaid law: In determining whether Saint Anthony Hospital has a right to sue to enforce the prompt payment rule, should the court of appeals have treated Wilder as relevant and, based upon that precedent, as well as Gonzaga and Talevski, upheld the Hospital’s right to sue the State under 42 U.S.C. § 1983?