dissenting:
To paraphrase Edward R. Murrow, anyone who isn’t confused by the majority opinion doesn’t really understand it.
After six years of litigation, after a trial and a decision of this court sustaining the district court’s jurisdiction, after further proceedings on remand, after an order finding the District of Columbia in contempt and the appointment of a receiver, after all this— voild — my two colleagues spot a “jurisdictional” flaw in the case, a flaw everyone else *571must have overlooked. Of course, they have discovered no such thing. The supposed defect identified in the majority opinion is not of the jurisdictional variety, and the issue the majority opinion addresses is hardly new— this court decided it two years ago when the District first appealed. LaShawn A. ex rel. Moore v. Kelly, 990 F.2d 1319 (D.C.Cir.1993) (“LaShawn F). The District sought rehearing from that decision. The court denied the petition. The District suggested rehearing en banc. It did not get the votes. Now my colleagues, forgetting that two judges do not an en banc court make, reverse the first panel’s ruling. That is, to say the least, an extraordinary result, and so are the reasons given for it. The majority opinion tosses aside settled law, turns its back on Supreme Court decisions, disregards the controlling precedents of this court, rewrites the holdings of other courts, and badly misreads a federal statute.1
I
Inconsistency is the antithesis of the rule of law. For judges, the most basic principle of jurisprudence is that “ “we must act alike in all cases of like nature.’ ”2 This is an old idea, and it has given rise to two time-honored doctrines of importance to this case. First, the same issue presented in a later case in the same court should lead to the same result. Second, the same issue presented a second time in the same case in the same court should lead to the same result. For three-judge panels in the federal courts of appeals, the first proposition reflects a variant of stare decisis, which I shall call the law-of-the-circuit doctrine. The second embodies the law-of-the-case doctrine. The majority opinion violates both.
The law-of-the-circuit doctrine is derived from legislation and from the structure of the federal courts of appeals. Courts of appeals sit in panels, or divisions, of “not more than three judges” pursuant to the authority granted in 28 U.S.C. § 46(c). The “decision of a division” is “the decision of the court.” Revision Notes to 28 U.S.C. § 46 (citing Textile Mills Securities Corp. v. Commissioner of Internal Revenue, 314 U.S. 326, 62 S.Ct. 272, 86 L.Ed. 249 (1941)); see Critical Mass Energy Project v. Nuclear Regulatory Comm’n, 975 F.2d 871, 876 (D.C.Cir.1992) (en banc), cert. denied, — U.S. —, 113 S.Ct. 1579, 123 L.Ed.2d 147 (1993). Were matters otherwise, the finality of our appellate decisions would yield to constant conflicts within the circuit. 314 U.S. at 335, 62 S.Ct. at 277-78. One three-judge panel, therefore, does not have the authority to overrule another three-judge panel of the court. E.g., United States v. Caldwell, 543 F.2d 1333, 1370 n. 19 (D.C.Cir.1974), cert. denied, 423 U.S. 1087, 96 S.Ct. 877, 47 L.Ed.2d 97 (1976). That power may be exercised only by the full court, either through an en banc decision, id., or pursuant to the more informal, and dubious, practice adopted in Irons v. Diamond, 670 F.2d 265, 268 n. 11 (D.C.Cir.1981). While the law-of-the-case doctrine allows for certain exceptions — although not, to be sure, the one the majority invents today — the law-of-the-circuit doctrine does not. Thus, in circuits such as ours, where both doctrines are at work, the more exacting law-of-the-circuit doctrine supplants the law-of-the-case doctrine when panels hear multiple appeals from a single case. See, e.g., United States v. 162.20 Acres of Land, 733 F.2d 377, 379 (5th Cir.1984) (explaining that when a prior panel in the same circuit has decided an issue, law-of-the-circuit doctrine supplants law-of-the-case doctrine and precludes reconsideration of that decision in a subsequent appeal, even if the second panel believes the first was wrong), cert. denied, 469 U.S. 1158, 105 S.Ct. 906, 83 L.Ed.2d 920 (1985); cf. Laffey v. Northwest Airlines, Inc., 740 F.2d 1071, 1077 (D.C.Cir.1984) (holding that both the law of the ease and the law of the circuit precluded a panel from reconsidering issues resolved in a prior appeal in the same case), cert. denied, 469 *572U.S. 1181, 105 S.Ct. 939, 83 L.Ed.2d 951 (1985).
Until today, the law-of-the-eircuit doctrine was completely settled, thoroughly understood and uniformly honored — by the two judges in the majority and the other judges of this court. See, e.g., Ayuda v. Thornburgh, 919 F.2d 153, 154 (D.C.Cir.1990) (Henderson, J., concurring); Air Line Pilots Ass’n Int’l v. Eastern Air Lines, Inc., 863 F.2d 891, 930 (D.C.Cir.1988) (Williams, J., concurring in denial of rehearing en banc), cert. dismissed, 501 U.S. 1283, 112 S.Ct. 38, 115 L.Ed.2d 1119 (1991). Likewise, the district judges in this circuit have rightly assumed that a decision of one panel of this court represents the law of the circuit. See, e.g., Feeling v. Kelly, 152 F.R.D. 670, 673 (D.D.C.1994) (relying upon LaShaum I to sustain the district court’s pendent jurisdiction).
Now things have changed. My two colleagues must admit — and do admit, although rather grudgingly — that they are today overruling the panel’s decision in LaShaum I. This is beyond dispute. The question the majority opinion addresses is a question La-Shaum I answered and answered in a way directly contrary to the majority’s disposition. LaShaum I explained that the District of Columbia’s statutory and regulatory scheme was “appropriately before us under our pendent jurisdiction,” 990 F.2d at 1324; held that federal judicial authority to decide the case on pendent grounds was “incontrovertible,” id. at 1326; and affirmed the district court’s exercise of that authority by confirming its decision “entirely on the basis of local law,” id. To put the matter starkly, the first panel — consisting of then-Chief Judge Mikva, Judge Sentelle and myself— directed the district judge not to consider federal claims and to revise the decree accordingly; a majority of the second panel— consisting of Judge Williams and Judge Henderson — now directs the district judge to consider federal claims and modify the decree accordingly. This is more than mere inconsistency. It is flat contradiction, and— because we are one court — it is self-contradiction.
II
Perhaps I should end on this note. But so much else is wrong with what the majority has written that I think it appropriate to say more. Apart from the law-of-the-eireuit doctrine, the law of the case foreclosed reopening the question my colleagues address, and the clear dictates of the Supreme Court, the Congress, and the Constitution should have steered them away from the conclusions they reach.
A
“When there are multiple appeals taken in the course of a single piece of litigation, law-of-the-case doctrine holds that decisions rendered on the first appeal should not be revisited on later trips to the appellate court.” Crocker v. Piedmont Aviation, Inc., 49 F.3d 735, 739 (D.C.Cir.1995), cert. denied, — U.S. —, 116 S.Ct. 180, — L.Ed.2d — (1995); see also Northwestern Ind. Tel. Co. v. FCC, 872 F.2d 465, 471 (D.C.Cir.1989), cert. denied, 493 U.S. 1035, 110 S.Ct. 757, 107 L.Ed.2d 773 (1990). The Supreme Court has instructed the lower courts to be “loathe” to reconsider issues already decided “in the absence of extraordinary circumstances such as where the initial decision was ‘clearly erroneous and would work a manifest injustice.’” Christianson v. Colt Indus. Operating Corp., 486 U.S. 800, 817, 108 S.Ct. 2166, 2178, 100 L.Ed.2d 811 (1988) (quoting Arizona v. California, 460 U.S. 605, 618 n. 8, 103 S.Ct. 1382, 1391 n. 8, 75 L.Ed.2d 318 (1983)). My colleagues identify no such “extraordinary circumstance” here. They can point to no intervening change in controlling legal authority. See McKesson Corp. v. Islamic Republic of Iran, 52 F.3d 346, 350 (D.C.Cir.1995). They do not claim that LaShaum I was “clearly erroneous” or that it “would work a manifest injustice.” See Christianson, 486 U.S. at 817, 108 S.Ct. at 2178.
Instead, my colleagues invent for themselves an exception to the law-of-the-case doctrine under which a subsequent panel is free to reexamine any “jurisdictional” question decided, but not extensively discussed, by an earlier panel in an earlier appeal of the same case. This invention is no doubt convenient as my colleagues struggle to reach the *573result they want here. Unfortunately, it also contradicts both the Supreme Court’s 1988 decision in Christianson v. Colt Industries Operating Corp. and our own very recent decision in Crocker v. Piedmont Aviation, Inc.
First, those decisions make clear that it is of no moment that the three-judge panel in LaShawn I devoted little space to the topic that now grabs the attention of two of my other colleagues. As the Supreme Court held in Christianson, the law-of-the-case doctrine turns “on whether a court previously decide[d] upon a rule of law ... not whether, or how well, it explained the decision.” 486 U.S. at 817,108 S.Ct. at 2178 (internal quotation marks omitted). And in Crocker, 49 F.3d at 739, we held that the law-of-the-case doctrine applies to questions decided “explicitly or by necessary implication.” The majority admits as much (maj. op. at 560), but then argues that the issues “most strongly inviting a relaxed application of law of the case are those that the prior decision never explicitly confronted” (maj. op. at 562). This is doubly wrong. It misstates LaShawn I and it misstates the law. While LaShawn I did not provide a detailed analysis of United Mine Workers of America v. Gibbs, 383 U.S. 715, 86 S.Ct. 1130, 16 L.Ed.2d 218 (1966), doubtless because the District did not rest its appeal on any supposed lack of pendent jurisdiction, the law-of-the-case doctrine depends not on how extensively the earlier panel discussed the particular issue, but on whether it decided it, as LaShawn I assuredly did.
Second, the Supreme Court in Christian-son specifically rejected the “jurisdictional question” exception the majority manufactures for this ease. The Court there said that the law-of-the-case doctrine prohibits a federal court from revisiting another federal court’s decision to transfer a case to it so long as the transferee court finds the transfer decision “plausible.” 486 U.S. at 819,108 S.Ct. at 2179. The Court explained:
There is no reason to apply law-of-the-case principles less rigorously to transfer decisions that implicate the transferee’s jurisdiction. Perpetual litigation of any issue— jurisdictional or nonjurisdictional — delays, and therefore threatens to deny, justice.
Id. at 816-17 n. 5, 108 S.Ct. at 2178 n. 5. In reaching that conclusion, the Court rejected Potomac Passengers Ass’n v. Chesapeake & Ohio Ry. Co., 520 F.2d 91, 95 n. 22 (D.C.Cir.1975), in which this court first suggested that the law-of-the-case doctrine might not preclude reconsideration of jurisdictional questions. Id. The majority acknowledges the Supreme Court’s rejection of Potomac Passengers, but then inexplicably ignores it. It is true, as the majority states, that Potomac Passengers was “widely cited for the proposition that jurisdictional questions are relatively unrestrained by law of the case” (maj. op. at 560), but that was before Christianson. In the seven years since Christianson, only two federal courts have even mentioned Potomac Passengers, and then only to bolster the unremarkable conclusion that a district court is free to reconsider its own non-final jurisdictional decisions. Matek v. Murat, 862 F.2d 720, 724 n. 1 (9th Cir.1988); Travelers Indem. Co. v. Household Int’l, Inc., 775 F.Supp. 518, 530 (D.Conn.1991).3 The majority cites no case since Christianson in which a federal appellate court has reversed a jurisdictional decision made by a prior merits panel. Today, of course, this court and other courts of appeals routinely apply law-of-the-case preclusion to questions of jurisdiction, see, e.g., McKesson Corp., 52 F.3d at 350; Oneida Indian Nation of New York v. State of New York, 860 F.2d 1145, 1151 (2d Cir.1988), cert. denied, 493 U.S. 871, 110 S.Ct. 200, 107 L.Ed.2d 154 (1989), and do so even when the first decision regarding jurisdiction is less than explicit. See, e.g., In re Memorial Estates, Inc., 950 F.2d 1364, 1367 (7th Cir.1991), cert. denied, 504 U.S. 986, 112 S.Ct. 2969, 119 L.Ed.2d 589 (1992).
So where does the majority derive the inspiration for its invention? Hunting far and wide for something, anything, to counteract the force of Christianson and Crocker, the majority comes up with a strange source *574of support—Pennhurst State School & Hospital v. Halderman, 465 U.S. 89, 104 S.Ct. 900, 79 L.Ed.2d 67 (1984) (“Pennhurst II”). No matter that Pennhurst II decided nothing about the law-of-the-case doctrine, in fact did not even mention it. It is enough for the majority that the Supreme Court said in Pennhurst II that it does not consider itself bound by decisions on questions of jurisdiction made sub silentio in previous cases “when a subsequent case finally brings the jurisdictional issue” to the Court. 465 U.S. at 119, 104 S.Ct. at 918 (internal quotation marks and citation omitted). But that plainly has nothing to do with this appeal. The cited portion of Pennhurst II dealt with the stare decisis effect of decisions in other cases, not the effect of earlier decisions by the same appellate court in the same case.
It would take a mighty leap to get from Pennhurst II to the majority’s newly-coined rule that an appellate court may freely revisit jurisdictional questions it decided in an earlier appeal of the same case. My colleagues make the attempt, but predictably fall well short. While acknowledging that the Supreme Court never addressed the law-of-the-case doctrine in Pennhurst II (maj. op. at 562), they declare — here comes the jump— that the Court “acted” as if the majority’s new law-of-the-case exception already existed (maj. op. at 562). The majority’s theory has two flaws, both fatal. First, the Supreme Court had no reason to “act” as if the majority’s new law-of-the-case exception already existed in Pennhurst II because there was no law-of-the-case issue there at all.4 Second, regardless of how the majority thinks the Supreme Court “acted” in Pennhurst II, the Court clearly rejected the majority’s “jurisdictional question” exception four years later in Christianson.
B
Even if my colleagues were free to create an exception to the law-of-the-case doctrine for “jurisdictional questions,” they still would face a major problem here: the application of Gibbs step two is not, as they claim, “jurisdictional,” see (maj. op. at 563). It becomes “jurisdictional” in my colleagues’ eyes only because they must see it this way. Otherwise, there is no explaining why they ignore the law of the case and take it upon themselves to reexamine this court’s earlier holding in LaShawn I. And so they form a perfect circle: Gibbs step two is jurisdictional because it requires continuous reexamination (maj. op. at 562), and it requires continuous reexamination because it is jurisdictional (maj. op. at 564). There is, however, a rub— the Supreme Court and the lower federal courts have uniformly recognized that the second step of the Gibbs analysis is decidedly not jurisdictional. The matter is discretionary. Here the discretion had already been exercised — in LaShawn I — in favor of resolving the case entirely on pendent local law grounds.
Obviously, the concept of pendent jurisdiction entails a jurisdictional element, but that is comprised in the first step of the Gibbs analysis. See Wal-Juice Bar, Inc. v. Elliott, 899 F.2d 1502, 1503 (6th Cir.1990); District of Columbia Common Cause v. District of Columbia, 858 F.2d 1, 10 (D.C.Cir.1988); Dimond v. District of Columbia, 792 F.2d 179, 188 (D.C.Cir.1986); Financial Gen. Bankshares, Inc. v. Metzger, 680 F.2d 768, 772 (D.C.Cir.1982). Step one of Gibbs deals with the court’s “power” to hear pendent local law claims — its jurisdiction — when the case raises a “substantial” federal issue and the federal and local law claims “derive from a common nucleus of operative fact” and “are such that [the plaintiff] would ordinarily be ex*575pected to try them all in one proceeding.” Gibbs, 383 U.S. at 725, 86 S.Ct. at 1138. The federal courts’ subject matter jurisdiction, to the extent Congress authorizes it, is derived directly from Article III, Section 2, extending the judicial “Power” to “all Cases in Law and Equity arising under this Constitution, the Laws of the United States-” U.S. Const. art. Ill, § 2; see also Merrell Dow Pharmaceuticals Inc. v. Thompson, 478 U.S. 804, 807, 106 S.Ct. 3229, 3231, 92 L.Ed.2d 650 (1986); United States Parole Comm’n v. Geraghty, 445 U.S. 388, 395-96, 100 S.Ct. 1202, 1208, 63 L.Ed.2d 479 (1980). The doctrine of pendent jurisdiction rests on the idea that the court’s jurisdiction over the underlying federal claim brings the related pendent claims under the scope of Article III because they are part of the same “case” or “controversy.” See Gibbs, 383 U.S. at 725, 86 S.Ct. at 1138; Osborn v. Bank of the United States, 22 U.S. (9 Wheat.) 738, 821-23, 6 L.Ed. 204 (1824). Gibbs’ requirements of a substantial federal claim, a common nucleus of operative fact, and the expectation of one trial, 383 U.S. at 725, 86 S.Ct. at 1138, “serve[] as an operational definition of the ‘one constitutional “ease” ’ language.” Richard A. Matasar, Rediscovering “One Constitutional Case”: Procedural Rules and the Rejection of the Gibbs Test for Supplemental Jurisdiction, 71 Cal.L.Rev. 1399, 1416 (1983).
There can be not the slightest doubt here that the children’s claims under federal statutory law, the Constitution, and District of Columbia law all arise from a common set of facts. The district court’s jurisdiction — its power — to decide the local law claims thus turned on the substantiality of the underlying federal claims. Whether a court may decide pendent claims is determined on the face of the pleadings. Contrary to what the majority tells us, the ultimate disposition of the federal claim is “immaterial on the question of power.” 13B CHARLES A. WRIGHT, Arthur R. Miller & Edward H. Cooper, Federal Praotioe and Procedure § 3567.1, at 114-15 (1995).
Once a district court finds a substantial federal claim, it has jurisdiction over the entire case. The court then must engage in the second step of the Gibbs analysis and decide whether to exercise that jurisdiction over the local or state law claims. This aspect of Gibbs — the so-called “key issue” according to my colleagues — is not a jurisdictional determination. It is an entirely prudential one, which is why Gibbs held that “pendent jurisdiction is a doctrine of discretion. ...” 383 U.S. at 726, 86 S.Ct. at 1139.5 To reach a contrary conclusion, the majority must misconstrue a decision of the Seventh Circuit and then completely mischaracterize a decision of this circuit. In Maguire v. Marquette University, 814 F.2d 1213 (7th Cir.1987), the Seventh Circuit did not, as the majority claims, call the Gibbs step two analysis jurisdictional. See maj. op. at 563. It applied that label only to the Gibbs “rule” that “if the federal claims are dismissed before trial ... the state claims should be dismissed as well.” See Gibbs, 383 U.S. at 726, 86 S.Ct. at 1139. The majority’s mis-characterization of this court’s decision in Minker v. Baltimore Annual Conference of United Methodist Church, 894 F.2d 1354 (D.C.Cir.1990), is far worse. The majority insinuates that the Minker court called Gibbs step two a “jurisdictional question.” Maj. op. at 564. It did no such thing. In Minker, this court said, “Our holding raises a new jurisdictional question on remand.” 894 F.2d at 1361. The new question left “on remand” was not a Gibbs question — this court handled that one itself — but rather was whether the plaintiff had sufficiently pled diversity to provide an independent basis of jurisdiction over his state-law claim. 894 F.2d at 1361. That is a jurisdictional question all right, but it is not Gibbs step two.
*576Despite my colleagues’ best efforts, then, Gibbs step two remains not a “jurisdictional inquiry,”6 but a prudential determination left to the discretion of the court that makes it. There is no other way to explain Schmidt v. Oakland Unified School District, 457 U.S. 594, 595, 102 S.Ct. 2612, 2612, 73 L.Ed.2d 245 (1982), in which the Supreme Court held that a federal court’s decision whether to resolve pendent local law claims was to be reviewed for abuse of discretion. See also Edmondson & Gallagher v. Alban Towers Tenants Ass’n, 48 F.3d 1260, 1265-66 (D.C.Cir.1995) (Williams, J.) (“Whether actually to decide [the local-law claims] is a matter left to the sound discretion of the district court.... We review for abuse of discretion.”).
The majority purports to apply that standard here, apparently concluding that the district court abused its discretion in “failing] to consider the impact of Gibbs step 2 factors — particularly considerations of comity — on its exercise of jurisdiction_” Maj. op. at 566. What discretion? The district court did not address Gibbs step two on remand and for good reason: this court already had done so. See LaShawn I, 990 F.2d at 1326. The district court, in other words, had no discretion to abuse. It was bound by the holding in LaShawn I. See In re Ivan F. Boesky Securities Litigation, 957 F.2d 65, 68 (2d Cir.1992) (explaining that the law-of-the-case doctrine leaves a district court “no discretion” in carrying out an appellate court’s directions on remand). If we suppose that the district court abused its discretion in complying with our ruling in LaShawn I, what, according to the majority, should the district court have done?
Ill
The majority’s handiwork thus far ought to be enough to leave the district judge thoroughly confused, but my colleagues are not finished yet. For the remand, they direct the district court to apply an entirely new set of pendent jurisdiction rules and then to ignore the clear direction of Congress in interpreting the federal statutory scheme at the center of this case.
A
On remand, the majority declares, the district court must “examinef] the validity of the federal claims” and determine whether “any federal grounds survive that could support an injunction.” Maj. op. at 558, 567.7 This direction happens to conflict directly with Rosado v. Wyman, 397 U.S. 397, 405, 90 S.Ct. 1207, 1214, 25 L.Ed.2d 442 (1970), which is relegated to a footnote in the major*577ity opinion. In Rosado v. Wyman, the Supreme Court roundly rejected the idea that “once a federal court loses power over the jurisdiction-conferring claim, it may not consider a pendent claim.” 397 U.S. at 404, 90 S.Ct. at 1213. Just as a federal court does not lose jurisdiction over a diversity action if one of the parties moves while the appeal is pending, a federal court does not lose pendent jurisdiction over the local law claims if the federal claims are decided against the plaintiff or otherwise drop out of the case. Id. at 405 & n. 6, 90 S.Ct. at 1214 & n. 6. In the Supreme Court’s words, Rosado holds that there is no requirement that a federal court have “jurisdiction over the primary claim at all stages of the litigation as a prerequisite to resolution of the pendent claim,” id. at 405, 90 S.Ct. at 1214 — a holding completely at odds with the majority’s proposition that even now, after an extensive trial and two appeals, the pendent jurisdiction already exercised must be undone unless the plaintiffs’ local law claims remain closely intertwined with “winning” federal claims. Under Rosado, even if the first panel had reversed the judgment to the extent the district court found the District in violation of federal law, pendent jurisdiction over the local law claims would still exist, and the extensive violations of local law would support the decree.
Having made a shambles of Gibbs step two and of Rosado v. Wyman, the majority lays waste to what remains of the law of pendent jurisdiction. Unlike plaintiffs in any other case ever decided by the federal courts, the plaintiffs here may retain their victory on their local law claims only if it turns out that they had “winning” federal claims. Maj. op. at 566. “Winning”? Where does this idea come from? Gibbs and the cases following it require only that the federal claim asserted in the complaint be “substantial,” that is, that it “have substance sufficient to confer subject matter jurisdiction on the court,” a principle derived from Levering & Garrigues Co. v. Motrin, 289 U.S. 103, 53 S.Ct. 549, 77 L.Ed. 1062 (1933). Gibbs, 383 U.S. at 725, 86 S.Ct. at 1138. According to Levering, “jurisdiction, as distinguished from merits, is wanting where the claim set forth in the pleading is plainly unsubstantial ... either because [it is] obviously without merit, or ‘because its unsoundness so clearly results from the previous decisions of [the Supreme] court as to foreclose the subject and leave no room for the inference that the questions sought to be raised can be the subject of controversy.’ ” 289 U.S. at 105-06, 53 S.Ct. at 550 (italics added) (quoting Hannis Distilling Co. v. Mayor of Baltimore, 216 U.S. 285, 288, 30 S.Ct. 326, 327, 54 L.Ed. 482 (1910)). A federal question is therefore “substantial” for purposes of pendent jurisdiction if it is not “so attenuated and unsubstantial as to be absolutely devoid of merit,” “wholly insubstantial,” “obviously frivolous,” or “no longer open to discussion.” Hagans v. Lavine, 415 U.S. 528, 536-37, 94 S.Ct. 1372, 1379, 39 L.Ed.2d 577 (1974) (internal quotation marks and citations omitted); see also District of Columbia Common Cause, 858 F.2d at 10; Town of W. Hartford v. Operation Rescue, 991 F.2d 1039, 1049 (2d Cir.), cert. denied, — U.S. —, 114 S.Ct. 185, 126 L.Ed.2d 144 (1993); Matasar, supra, 71 Cal. L.Rev. at 1419. The Court explained in Ha-gans: “The limiting words “wholly’ and ‘obviouslyz have cogent legal significance.... [T]hose words import that claims are constitutionally insubstantial only if the prior decisions inescapably render the claims frivolous; previous decisions that merely render claims of doubtful or questionable merit do not render them insubstantial_” 415 U.S. at 537-38, 94 S.Ct. at 1379.
In requiring the district court to find a “winning” federal claim as a prerequisite to exercising jurisdiction over pendent local law claims, my colleagues have thus overruled the Supreme Court’s decisions in Levering, Hagans, and Gibbs — a tall order for two judges of an inferior federal court.
Given their treatment of Supreme Court precedents, it is little wonder that my colleagues also mow down two decisions of this court bearing directly on the issue they think needs deciding. In District of Columbia Common Cause v. District of Columbia, 858 F.2d at 10, we upheld solely on pendent local law grounds an injunction against the District of Columbia prohibiting it from spending public funds to oppose citizens’ initiatives. Far from determining whether a winning *578federal claim supported the injunction, we refused to decide the merits of the federal claim (much as did the panel in LaShawn I) because it was not “so attenuated and unsubstantial as to be absolutely devoid of merit,” and was therefore substantial enough to support the pendent claims. Id. (citation omitted). Dimond v. District of Columbia, 792 F.2d 179 (D.C.Cir.1986), is to the same effect. We there reversed the district court’s ruling that a District of Columbia statute violated federal law. Although the federal claim was a loser, we considered it “substantial enough” to allow us to exercise jurisdiction over the pendent local law claim and to decide it, which we did. 792 F.2d at 188.8
The majority ignores Dimond but attempts to distinguish District of Columbia Common Cause on the ground that the injunction there was somehow inoffensive to the notion of “comity” the majority tries to fashion out of its favorite recurring non se-quitur, Pennhurst II. Maj. op. at 566-66. Pennhurst II is an exceedingly odd, indeed astonishing, source for the majority’s views on the comity this court owes local District of Columbia courts. Odd because Pennhurst II dealt with something no one would have dreamed this case involved — the Eleventh Amendment to the Constitution. Exceedingly odd because the Eleventh Amendment confers immunity on the states from certain suits in federal court, and when last I checked, the District of Columbia was not a state. Astonishing because the majority nonetheless finds that Pennhurst II and the Eleventh Amendment somehow “suggest that, in general, injunctions against nonfederal officials based on nonfederal law should be disfavored.” Maj. op. at 564-65.
*579It is hard to take this seriously. The Eleventh Amendment prohibits federal courts from entertaining “suit[s] in law or equity, commenced or prosecuted against one of the United, States.” U.S. Const, amend. XI (italics added). That eliminates the District of Columbia. I would have thought that judges in this circuit needed no reminding that the District is not a sovereign state, separate from the federal government. It is the seat of our national government, and it is subject to Congress’ plenary authority under Article I, Section 8, Clause 17 of the Constitution.9 See Palmore v. United States, 411 U.S. 389, 397, 93 S.Ct. 1670, 1676, 36 L.Ed.2d 342 (1973). Although inhabitants of the District today possess, to some degree, the power of self-government, District of Columbia Self-Government and Governmental Reorganization Act, Pub.L. No. 93-198, 87 Stat. 774 (1973), they hold that power at Congress’ forbearance, and it is far from absolute. Congress has “reserve[d] the right, at any time, to exercise its constitutional authority as legislature for the District, by enacting legislation for the District on any subject ... including legislation to amend or repeal any law in force in the District ... and any act passed by the [District] Council.” Id. § 601. The District government must submit any law it enacts to Congress, which can disapprove the law within 30 days. Id. § 602(c)(1). The District may make no expenditures, even of funds it raises through its own means of revenue collection, unless approved by an act of Congress. Id. § 446.
The District is thus a distinctly federal entity, “truly mi generis in our governmental structure.” District of Columbia v. Carter, 409 U.S. 418, 432, 93 S.Ct. 602, 610, 34 L.Ed.2d 613 (1973). A suit in federal court against a federal entity “is hardly the instrument of a distant, disconnected sovereign,” Hess v. Port Auth. Trans-Hudson Corp., — U.S. —, —, 115 S.Ct. 394, 401, 130 L.Ed.2d 245 (1994), and thus raises none of the concerns that underpin the Eleventh Amendment or the Supreme Court’s application of it in Pennhurst II. Accordingly, the cases the majority cites concerning the comity owed states—Angela R. ex rel. Hesselbein v. Clinton, 999 F.2d 320 (8th Cir.1993), and Evans v. Buchanan, 468 F.Supp. 944 (D.Del. 1979) — are irrelevant here.10
Stripped of their faulty Eleventh Amendment underpinnings, my colleagues’ views on the comity owed District of Columbia courts turn solely on their misunderstanding of the Gibbs step two analysis. The majority seems to think that the existence of local law claims automatically counsels against the exercise of jurisdiction over them. If that were true, pendent jurisdiction would never exist. But as this court has made clear, it is the extent to which a local law issue is “novel and unsettled” — and not its mere existence — that might counsel against the exercise of jurisdiction. Compare Financial Gen. Bankshares, Inc. v. Metzger, 680 F.2d 768, 775 (D.C.Cir.1982) (district court abused its discretion in exercising pendent jurisdiction over “novel and unsettled” local law issues) and Grano v. Barry, 733 F.2d 164, 169 (D.C.Cir.1984) (rejecting pendent jurisdiction over “novel and unsettled” local law issues) with Dimond v. District of Columbia, 792 F.2d at 189 (where local law issues were neither novel nor unsettled, uncertainty in local law could not weigh heavily against the exercise of pendent jurisdiction). The major*580ity has identified no such “novel and unsettled” local law issues at stake here. To do so now, it would have to overrule yet another portion of LaShawn I, in which this court held that District of Columbia law clearly provides private causes of actions for all of the children in the plaintiff class. 990 F.2d at 1326.
B
This brings me to the majority’s treatment of Suter v. Artist M., 503 U.S. 347, 112 S.Ct. 1360, 118 L.Ed.2d 1 (1992), and the statute Congress passed in the wake of that decision.
Suter held that one of the provisions of the Adoption Assistance and Child Welfare Act of 1980, 42 U.S.C. §§ 620-627 and §§ 670-679 (“the Act”), upon which plaintiffs have relied, could not be enforced through a private cause of action. In light of the Court’s holding with respect to that provision — 42 U.S.C. § 671(a)(15) — the majority suggests that the substantiality of the federal claims asserted by those plaintiff children who are not in custody may be undermined because, in view of Suter, they may not be able to enforce any of the Act’s provisions.11 Maj. op. at 570. And so the majority instructs the district court, on remand, to consider the effect of Suter.
That instruction collides with 42 U.S.C. § 1320a-2, a 1994 statute severely limiting Suter. The statute provides:
In an action brought to enforce a provision of this chapter, such provision is not to be deemed unenforceable because of its inclusion in a section of this chapter requiring a State plan or specifying the required contents of a State plan. This section is not intended to limit or expand the grounds for determining the availability of private actions to enforce State plan requirements other than by overturning any such grounds applied in Suter v. Artist M. [503 U.S. 347], 112 S.Ct. 1360 [118 L.Ed.2d 1] (1992), but not applied in prior Supreme Court decisions respecting such enforceability; provided, however, that this section is not intended to alter the holding in Suter v. Artist M. that section 671(a)(15) of this title is not enforceable in a private right of action.
Id. Theorizing that Congress may have been “misled” or “confused” by the language of Suter (maj. op. at 569-70), my colleagues essentially conclude that this statute has no effect at all. Maj. op. at 570. They claim that the first sentence of § 1320a-2 means nothing because Suter did not turn solely on the fact that the provision at issue was included in the state plan requirement. That point might be well taken, but what about the next sentence? There, Congress specifically directed the federal courts to use the same “grounds for determining the availability of private actions” they used before Suter and to disregard any new grounds the Supreme Court first applied in Suter. This direction may be understood only in light of the dissenting opinion in Suter, which claimed that the Suter majority had “changed the rules of the game” for finding private rights of action under § 1983. See 503 U.S. at 377,112 S.Ct. at 1377 (Blackmun, J., dissenting). Rightly or wrongly, Congress credited the dissenters’ view. “The intent of this provision,” the Conferees stated, “is to assure that individuals who have been injured by a State’s failure to comply with the Federal mandates of the State plan titles of the Social Security Act are able to seek redress in the federal courts to the extent they were able to prior to the decision in Suter v. Artist M. _” H.R.Conf.Rep.
No. 761, 103d Cong., 2d Sess. 926 (1994) (italics added). Two district courts have considered § 1320a-2 and have so read the provision. See Harris v. James, 883 F.Supp. 1511, 1519 (M.D.Ala.1995) (explaining that in § 1320a-2, Congress “mandated that courts continue to apply a pre-Suter approach”); Jeanine B. ex rel. Blondis v. Thompson, 877 F.Supp. 1268, 1283 (E.D.Wis.1995) (explaining that § 1320a-2 requires courts to “ ‘rewind the clock’ and look to cases prior to *581Suter to determine the enforceability of other provisions”)-12
My colleagues see things differently. They say that because Congress did not identify the specific Suter “grounds” it wished to reject, it must not have meant to reject any grounds. Maj. op. at 570. Even if that argument made any sense, it still would directly contradict both the language of the Suter amendment, which overturns “any such grounds” applied in Suter but not applied in prior Supreme Court decisions, see 42 U.S.C. § 1320a-2, and the “hornbook law” presumption against “interpreting a statute in a way which renders it ineffective,” see Federal Trade Comm’n v. Manager, Retail Credit Co., Miami Branch Office, 515 F.2d 988 (D.C.Cir.1975).
In short, Congress has directed the federal courts not to consider Suter in deciding whether there may be private enforcement of the Act, while my colleagues have directed the district court to do just the opposite.
Congress’ command raises constitutional problems of its own. Congress may not prescribe rules of decision for cases pending in the federal courts. See United States v. Klein, 80 U.S. (13 Wall.) 128, 146-48, 20 L.Ed. 519 (1871); Seattle Audubon Soc’y v. Robertson, 914 F.2d 1311, 1314-15 (9th Cir.1990), rev’d on other grounds, 503 U.S. 429, 112 S.Ct. 1407, 118 L.Ed.2d 73 (1992). But cf. Plant v. Spendthrift Farm, Inc., — U.S. —, —, 115 S.Ct. 1447, 1457, 131 L.Ed.2d 328 (1995). And it is far from certain whether Congress may, consistent with principles of separation of powers and the independence of the judicial branch, direct the lower federal courts to disregard the reasoning of an otherwise binding Supreme Court decision.
There is no reason why the district court, and ultimately this court, should have to ponder this serious question or the other constitutional issues the majority sends back to it, issues raised by the dictum in DeShaney v. Winnebago County Department of Social Services, 489 U.S. 189, 109 S.Ct. 998, 103 L.Ed.2d 249 (1989), with respect to the in-custody children. Maj. op. at 566 n. 9. For more than a century, the Supreme Court has endorsed the practice of deciding cases on the basis of a pendent state-law claim in order to avoid constitutional questions. Ashwander v. Tennessee Valley Auth., 297 U.S. 288, 346-47, 56 S.Ct. 466, 482-83, 80 L.Ed. 688 (1936) (Brandeis, J., concurring); Siler v. Louisville & Nashville R.R., 213 U.S. 175, 193, 29 S.Ct. 451, 455, 53 L.Ed. 753 (1909); Santa Clara County v. Southern Pacific R.R., 118 U.S. 394, 6 S.Ct. 1132, 30 L.Ed. 118 (1886). Pennhurst II itself stressed that nothing in its decision regarding the immunity of states under the Eleventh Amendment was “meant to cast doubt on the desirability of applying the principle [of avoiding constitutional questions] in cases where the federal court has jurisdiction to decide the state-law issues.” 465 U.S. at 118-19 n. 28, 104 S.Ct. at 918 n. 28. And in a later case, the Supreme Court held that it was an abuse of discretion for a court of appeals to reach a federal constitutional question when it could have avoided doing so by deciding the case on pendent state-law grounds. Schmidt v. Oakland Unified Sch. Dist., 457 U.S. at 595, 102 S.Ct. at 2612.
The majority opinion turns the table upside down. Again ignoring higher authority, the majority orders the district court to abuse its discretion by deciding the constitutional issues.
IV
It is time to bring this opinion to a close. The majority’s opinion disregards the law of this court and of the Supreme Court. My colleagues do not like the idea of a federal district court issuing a decree to govern local institutions. Nor do I, nor, for that matter, *582does the district judge in this case. But we are sworn to uphold the law. I therefore dissent.
ADDENDUM
The case went to trial four years ago. Two weeks of testimony revealed the District of Columbia’s deficient, inept administration of its foster care system. This testimony, together with more than a thousand admissions of fact by the District, showed that District officials had consistently failed to carry out responsibilities imposed on them by federal and local laws. LaShawn A. v. Dixon, 762 F.Supp. 959, 960, 986-87 (D.D.C.1991). These were far from minor infractions. The transgressions psychologically, emotionally and physically harmed those children in the District’s foster care system and those children who, although not yet in the District’s care, were known to the District because of reported abuse and neglect. Id. at 987.
The district court thus reached the “inescapable conclusion” that the District’s foster care system complied with neither “federal law, District law, [n]or, for those plaintiffs in the District’s foster care, the United States Constitution.” Id. at 960-61. The District’s administration of its foster care system violated numerous provisions of the Adoption Assistance and Child Welfare Act of 1980, 42 U.S.C. §§ 620-627 and §§ 670-679, and the Child Abuse Prevention and Treatment Act, 42 U.S.C. §§ 5101-5106.13 The Adoption Assistance Act, the court held, conferred upon the plaintiffs rights that were privately enforceable under 42 U.S.C. § 1983, which the District had violated by depriving plaintiffs of those rights. 762 F.Supp. at 988-90.
The district court also found that the District’s operation of its foster care system violated numerous provisions of the District’s Prevention of Child Abuse and Neglect Act of 1977, D.C.Law 2-22 (Sept. 23, 1977) (codified as amended at D.C.Code ANN. §§ 2-1351 to -1357, §§ 6-2101 to -2107, §§ 6-2121 to -2127, and §§ 16-2351 to -2365); the Youth Residential Facilities Licensure Act of 1986, D.C.Law 6-139 (Aug. 13, 1986) (codified as amended at D.C.Code Ann. §§ 3-801 to -808); and the Child and Family Services Division Manual of Operations (September 1985). The District’s obligations under its own laws parallel almost exactly the requirements of federal law. LaShawn A. ex rel. Moore v. Kelly, 990 F.2d 1319, 1324 (D.C.Cir.1993) (“LaShawn I”). Analogizing the rights of children in foster care to rights of those involuntarily committed, LaShawn, 762 F.Supp. at 992, the district court ruled that these laws conferred liberty and property interests, protected under the Fifth Amendment, on the children in the custody of the District’s foster care system, id. at 994. The District had violated § 1983 by depriving the children in foster care of these constitutionally protected interests. 762 F.Supp. at 998.
The parties worked out a remedial order designed to correct deficiencies in the District’s administration of its foster care system, and the district court entered it.
*583The District appealed, contending that the district court erred in finding that the administration of the District’s foster care system violated the Fifth Amendment and that the intervening decision in Suter v. Artist M., 503 U.S. 347, 112 S.Ct. 1360, 118 L.Ed.2d 1 (1992), precluded any private cause of action under § 1983 or federal child welfare statutes. LaShawn I, 990 F.2d at 1321-22. Recognizing that the appeal raised “complex constitutional and federal statutory issues,” we held that it was unnecessary to reach the District’s challenges. Id. at 1324. Under District law, children reported to have been abused or neglected had a private right of action under the District’s Prevention of Child Abuse and Neglect Act. Turner v. District of Columbia, 532 A.2d 662 (D.C.1987). Because a government owes greater duties toward those in its custody, we concluded that the children in the District’s foster care system also had a private right of action under the Act. LaShawn I, 990 F.2d at 1325. In addition, we noted that the other District statute relied on by the children, the Youth Residential Facilities Licensure Act, explicitly provides these children with a private cause of action to sue under the Prevention of Child Abuse and Neglect Act. Id. at 1325-26. These statutes, we held, “provide[d] an independent basis for supporting the district court’s judgment.” Id. at 1326." This court’s authority to decide the case entirely on the pendent local claims, we stated, was “incontrovertible” under United Mine Workers of America v. Gibbs, 383 U.S. 715, 86 S.Ct. 1130, 16 L.Ed.2d 218 (1966).
. For those unacquainted with this class action, I offer a brief history in an addendum to this opinion.
. Ward v. James, [1966] 1 Q.B. 273, 294 (C.A.) (quoting Lord Mansfield in John Wilkes’ case, Rex v. Wilkes, 98 Eng.Rep. 327, 335 (1770)). See Henry J. Friendly, Indiscretion About Discretion, 31 Emory L.J. 747, 758 (1982).
. DiLaura v. Power Authority of the State of New York, 982 F.2d 73, 76-77 (2d Cir.1992), the only other post-Christianson decision the majority cites in support of its law-of-the-case exception, also concerns only the authority of a district court to alter its non-final decisions.
. In Pennhurst State School & Hospital v. Halderman, 451 U.S. 1, 101 S.Ct. 1531, 67 L.Ed.2d 694 (1981) ("Pennhurst I"), the Court eliminated one federal basis for a consent decree, then remanded the case to the court of appeals to determine if state law or federal constitutional or statutory grounds could support the decree. Id. at 31, 101 S.Ct. at 1547. Pennhurst I did not decide whether the Eleventh Amendment would bar a federal court from granting relief against a state on pendent state-law claims. Rather, in directing the court of appeals to consider whether state law could support the decree, the Court directed the court of appeals to consider that question. Only after the court of appeals held on remand that state law alone was sufficient to support the order, 673 F.2d 647 (3d Cir.1982) (en banc), did the Supreme Court squarely confront the Eleventh Amendment question. Since the Court had not faced the question before Pennhurst II, it had not established any law of the case to apply.
. While it is true that the Supreme Court in Gibbs explained that the step two question remains open through “the litigation,” the Court meant only that the question need not be decided forever on the pleadings, but could be reconsidered during pretrial proceedings or even the trial itself. See Gibbs, 383 U.S. at 727, 86 S.Ct. at 1139. While it may be true that a district court can relinquish its pendent jurisdiction even after trial, see (maj. op. at 563), the majority has identified no case in which that question was revisited after a trial, an appeal, a remand, and another appeal.
. Congress has also explicitly recognized the discretionary nature of the second step of the Gibbs inquiry. The Judicial Improvement Act, enacted in 1990 and codified in part at 28 U.S.C. § 1367, states:
... in any civil action of which the district courts have original jurisdiction, the district courts shall have supplemental jurisdiction over all other claims that are so related to claims in the action within such original jurisdiction that they form part of the same case or controversy under Article III of the United States Constitution.
28 U.S.C. § 1367(a) (italics added). When the federal claim drops out, the district court has discretion to retain or dismiss the pendent local law claims: "The district courts may decline to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over a claim in subsection (a)” for any of the reasons listed in § 1367(c)(l)~(4). 28 U.S.C. § 1367(c) (italics added).
The majority passes over § 1367 because this case began before the statute's effective date (maj. op. at 562 n. 3). But in attaching their jurisdictional label to Gibbs step two, my colleagues should have paused to consider that § 1367 "codified the doctrine of pendent jurisdiction developed by the Supreme Court in the case of United Mine Workers of America v. Gibbs, 383 U.S. 715 [86 S.Ct. 1130, 16 L.Ed.2d 218] (1966), and its progeny.” Shanaghan v. Cahill, 58 F.3d 106, 109 (4th Cir.1995); see also Edmondson & Gallagher v. Alban Towers Tenants Ass'n, 48 F.3d 1260, 1266 (D.C.Cir.1995). (The statute also did a good deal more by allowing the federal courts to exercise jurisdiction over pendent parties, cf. Finley v. United States, 490 U.S. 545, 109 S.Ct. 2003, 104 L.Ed.2d 593 (1989), as distinguished from pendent claims. See David D. Siegel, Practice Commentary, 28 U.S.C.A. § 1367; Federal Courts Study Committee, Report of the Federal Courts Study Committee, Part III, at 546-68 (Apr. 2, 1990 & July 1, 1990).)
. It is a mystery to me why the majority assigns this task to the district court, rather than to itself. The questions posed are questions of law, and this court is in as good a position to decide them as the district court. The majority’s assignment sets the stage for yet another appeal, and the district judge must be as baffled as I am by this court’s conflicting commands.
. The majority relies on Evans v. City of Chicago, 10 F.3d 474 (7th Cir.1993) (en banc), cert. denied, —U.S. —, 114 S.Ct. 1831, 128 L.Ed.2d 460 (1994) (Evans III), to support its conclusion that the second part of the Gibbs analysis is a jurisdictional inquiry. Evans III is not on point. The Seventh Circuit reached the result it did because no substantial claim whatsoever — federal or local — underlay the district court's order. Evans III does not even discuss the question of pendent jurisdiction, since the only local claims at issue there were part of the plaintiffs' constitutional due process theory. 10 F.3d at 476. A prior appellate panel, Evans v. City of Chicago, 873 F.2d 1007 (7th Cir.1989) (Evans II), rejected both of the plaintiffs' constitutional challenges to the City of Chicago's practice of paying some judgments earlier than others. That panel explicitly held that the City had not violated the Constitution’s guarantee of equal protection, id. at 1015-18, and according to Evans III, there was "little doubt that Evans II would have repulsed a due process argument had the plaintiffs presented it for decision,” 10 F.3d at 480-81. Given the absence of a substantial federal claim, the Evans III court held that the district court had no jurisdiction to enforce the consent decree. The "bare consent of the officeholder" was not a sufficient basis for imposing obligations on the City. Id. at 479.
Here, it is not the "bare consent” of the District that supports the consent decree. As this court held, the decree rests on the District’s flagrant and repeated violations of District of Columbia law. LaShawn I, 990 F.2d at 1325. For purposes of this appeal, Evans III demonstrates, if anything, only that the first part of the Gibbs inquiry — the substantiality of the underlying federal claim — is jurisdictional.
Nor does Angela R. ex rel. Hesselbein v. Clinton, 999 F.2d 320 (8th Cir.1993), support the majority's holding. In that case, as here, the federal claims against the governor of Arkansas and the director of the state's Department of Human Services were based in the Constitution, the Adoption Assistance and Child Welfare Act of 1980, 42 U.S.C. §§ 620-628, 670-679, and the Child Abuse Prevention and Treatment Act, 42 U.S.C. §§ 5101-5106a. 999 F.2d at 322. The court recognized the uncertainty of the constitutional claims of those children not in foster care. Moreover, it noted that the analysis in Suter v. Artist M., 503 U.S. 347, 112 S.Ct. 1360, 118 L.Ed.2d 1 (1992), "might ultimately compel the conclusion that the ... federal statutes upon which plaintiffs rely do not create an enforceable private right of action on their behalf." 999 F.2d at 323, 324. Nevertheless, because these questions went to the merits of the plaintiffs’ claims and did not “inescapably render the claims frivolous,” it held the district court clearly had jurisdiction to enter a consent decree resolving the dispute. Id. at 324 (internal quotation marks and citation omitted). Thus, as to the question whether the plaintiffs here have federal claims substantial enough to support the district court’s exercising pendent jurisdiction over their local law claims, Angela R. supports a conclusion directly contrary to the majority's.
The problem in Angela R. was not jurisdictional, but centered on "future enforcement of [the] obligations” imposed by the decree. Id. The Eighth Circuit concluded that the consent decree did not resolve specifically enough how it was to be enforced, and that the district court therefore abused its discretion in approving it. Id. at 325. Because Angela R. was a suit against state officials, Eleventh Amendment concerns made it particularly important that the decree's enforcement provisions were consensual and plain. Id. at 325-26. Those concerns are not present here. See infra pp. 565-66.
. For purposes of 42 U.S.C. § 1983, Congress has indicated that the District of Columbia should be treated as a municipal government. H.RJRef No. 548, 96th Cong., 1st Sess. 2 (1979). After noting that municipalities may be liable for § 1983 violations under Monell v. City of New York, 436 U.S. 658, 98 S.Ct. 2018, 56 L.Ed.2d 611 (1978), the House report stated: "That decision leaves the District of Columbia government and its officers as the only persons in the United States or its territories who are not subject to Section 1983 liability.” H.R.Rep. No. 548, supra, at 2. By contrast, § 1983 does not abrogate the Eleventh Amendment immunity accorded to States. Quern v. Jordan, 440 U.S. 332, 340-41, 99 S.Ct. 1139, 1144-45, 59 L.Ed.2d 358 (1979); Alabama v. Pugh, 438 U.S. 781, 98 S.Ct. 3057, 57 L.Ed.2d 1114 (1978) (per curiam).
. Committee of Blind Vendors of the District of Columbia v. District of Columbia, 28 F.3d 130 (D.C.Cir.1994), is likewise of little value here because it concerned not the comity federal courts owe District of Columbia courts, but the respect owed the District’s administrative agencies in a statutory scheme in which Congress specifically said that the District of Columbia should be treated like a state. See 28 F.3d at 132 n. 1.
. The district court found the District in violation of six provisions of the Act. See infra note 13.
. Before Suter, federal courts had sustained private actions brought under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 to enforce the Act's provisions. See, e.g., Timmy S. v. Stumbo, 916 F.2d 312, 316 (6th Cir.1990) (determining that the “reasonable promptness” provision of 42 U.S.C. § 671(a)(12) is enforceable under 42 U.S.C. § 1983); L.J. ex rel. Darr v. Massinga, 838 F.2d 118, 123 (4th Cir.1988), cert. denied, 488 U.S. 1018, 109 S.Ct. 816, 102 L.Ed.2d 805 (1989) (holding the substantive requirements listed in § 671(a)(9), (10) & (16) enforceable under § 1983); Lynch v. Dukakis, 719 F.2d 504, 512 (1st Cir.1983) (concluding that the case plan requirements of § 671(a)(16) and § 675(1) & (5)(B) are enforceable under § 1983).
. Specifically, the court found the District in violation of the following requirements imposed upon recipients of federal funding for child welfare programs: (1) 42 U.S.C. § 5106a(b)(2) (requiring prompt investigations into reports of abuse or neglect and necessary action to protect welfare of abused or neglected children), 762 F.Supp. at 968-70; (2) 42 U.S.C. § 5106a(b)(3) (requiring demonstration of program to ensure effective treatment of child abuse and neglect cases), 762 F.Supp. at 970; (3) 42 U.S.C. § 671(a)(15) (requiring provision of services to enable a child for whom a report has been made to remain in the home or, if removal is necessary, to enable the child to return home as quickly as possible), 762 F.Supp. at 970; (4) 42 U.S.C. § 672(e) (mandating that a child return home within 180 days unless a judicial determination has been made that foster care placement is in the child's best interests), 762 F.Supp. at 971; (5) 42 U.S.C. § 675(5)(A) (requiring procedures to assure children are placed in least restrictive settings), 762 F.Supp. at 971; (6) 42 U.S.C. § 675(1) (requiring timely preparation of case plans containing specific information), 762 F.Supp. at 972-73; (7) 42 U.S.C. § 675(5)(B) (requiring review of child's status at least every six months), 762 F.Supp. at 974; and (8) 42 U.S.C. § 627(a)(2)(A) (requiring operation of information system from which status, location and goals for placement of all foster care children may be readily determined), 762 F.Supp. at 976-77.