In the case of Sue Suter, et al. v. Artist M., et al., 1991, the U.S Supreme Court was tasked with interpreting a provision in the Adoption Assistance and Child Welfare Act of 1980 that required states to make "reasonable efforts" to prevent or eliminate the need for removal of children from their homes before placing them in foster care or adoption programs. The plaintiffs argued that this provision created an enforceable right under Section 1983 (a civil rights statute), which would allow individuals to sue state officials for violations. However, the court ruled against this interpretation stating that while Congress intended states to make reasonable efforts as described by law, it did not intend these requirements to be enforced through private lawsuits under Section 1983. Therefore, no individual right was created by this specific provision and hence could not be enforced via litigation brought by individuals who felt they had been wronged.

In the dissenting opinion for Sue Suter, et al. v. Artist M., et al., Justice Blackmun argued that the Adoption Assistance and Child Welfare Act of 1980 did indeed create an enforceable right under Section 1983. He disagreed with the majority's interpretation of "reasonable efforts," asserting that it was not as vague or amorphous as they suggested but rather a standard used frequently in law which courts are capable of enforcing. Furthermore, he contended that Congress intended to benefit individual children when passing this act and thus created rights for these individuals. Lastly, he criticized the majority’s reliance on Pennhurst State School and Hospital v Halderman (a case dealing with state obligations under Spending Clause legislation), arguing it was misapplied in this context because there were clear indications from Congress about its intent to impose binding obligations on states regarding child welfare services.