With no explanation, chose the best option from "A", "B", "C" or "D". whether plaintiffs were entitled to the injunction under § 1983 for the violation of the federal regulations. Taking a cue from Justice Stevens's dissent in Sandoval, the South Camden court determined that Sandoval did not preclude § 1983 actions, even those brought under § 602 of Title VI. After a lengthy analysi (E.D.Mich.2001) contains a rather detailed discussion of Sandoval and § 1983. In Lucero, the district court concluded that there was a private right enforceable under § 1983 for violations of regulations passed pursuant to § 602. The Lucero court, however, resides in the Sixth Circuit, which has a more liberal standard regarding whether federal rights can stem from regulations to uphold § 1983 claims. See Loschiavo v. City of Dearborn, 33 F.3d 548, 554 (6th Cir.1994) (<HOLDING>); but see Harris v. James, 127 F.3d 993, 1009

A: recognizing that the supremacy clause does not of its own force create rights
B: holding federal regulations have the force of law and may create enforceable rights
C: recognizing that these two recent supreme court decisions resolve the issue of whether federal regulations alone can create enforceable rights under  1983
D: holding that title xix providers have federal rights enforceable in a  1983 action
B.