Document: 476 U.S. 667 106 S.Ct. 2133 90 L.Ed.2d 623 Otis R. BOWEN, Secretary of Health and Human Services, et al., Petitionersv.MICHIGAN ACADEMY OF FAMILY PHYSICIANS al. No. 85-225. Argued Jan. 22, 1986. Decided June 9, Syllabus Respondents, who include an association family physicians several individual doctors, filed suit in Federal District Court to challenge the validity a regulation that was promulgated under Part B Medicare program authorizes payment benefits different amounts for similar physicians' services. Holding contravened statutory provisions governing program, court rejected Services' contention (the question presented this Court) Congress has forbidden judicial review all questions affecting amount payable program. The Appeals agreed. Held: In neither 42 U.S.C. § 1395ff (1982 ed. Supp. II) nor 1395ii ed., II), barred regulations Pp. 670-682. (a) There is strong presumption intends administrative action. Only upon showing clear convincing evidence contrary legislative intent should courts restrict access review. 670-673. (b) 1395ff(b) authorize determinations as A do not impliedly foreclose regulations. reticulated scheme, which details forum limits Parts B, simply does speak challenges method by such are be determined rather than themselves. That did preclude awards computed (as opposed computation) supported history. United States v. Erika, Inc., 456 201, 102 1650, 72 12, explained. 674-678. (c) Nor 1395ii, states 405(h) along with other Social Security Act, shall applicable here. Regardless abstract meaning 405(h), prohibits certain actions against Government or its officers, section apply on own terms but instead incorporated mutatis mutandis 1395ii. history provides specific Congress' only "amount determinations," substantial constitutional Secretary's administration B. 678-681. 757 F.2d 91 (CA6 1985) affirmed. STEVENS, J., delivered opinion Court, Members joined, except REHNQUIST, took no part consideration decision case. Edwin S. Kneedler, Washington, D.C., petitioners. Alan G. Gilchrist, Detroit, Mich., respondents. Justice STEVENS Court. 1 case whether Congress, either Title Code, 2 CFR 405.504(b) (1985), held statute program: 3 "There basis justify segregation allopathic from types physicians. Such rationally related any legitimate purpose statute. To lump MDs physicians, have chosen become board certified whatever motive, chiropractors, dentists, podiatrists determining reimbursement defies reason." Michigan Academy Family Physicians Blue Cross Shield Michigan, 502 F.Supp. 751, 755 (E.D.Mich.1980). 4 Because it ruled favor respondents grounds, reach their claims. See id., at 756. agreed "obvious[ly] inconsisten[t] plain language statute" "this irrational invalid." 728 326, 332 1984). Like too declined respondents' 332, n. 5. 5 Services sought merits invalidating regulation. Instead, he renews contention, both Appeals, important divided Courts Appeals,1 we granted petition writ certiorari.2 We now affirm. 6 * begin From beginning "our cases [have established] final agency action aggrieved person will cut off unless there persuasive reason believe Congress." ABBOTT Laboratories Gardner, 387 136, 140, 87 1507, 1510, 18 681 (1967) (citing cases). generally L. Jaffe, Judicial Control Administrative Action 339-353 (1965). Marbury Madison, Cranch 137, 163, L.Ed. 60 (1803), itself involving executive action, Chief Marshall insisted "[t]he very essence civil liberty certainly consists right every claim protection laws." Later, lesser known nonetheless Nourse, 9 Pet. 8, 28-29, 34 31 (1835), noted traditional observance laid foundation modern review: 7 "It would excite some surprise if, government laws principle, furnished department whose appropriate duty decide right, between individuals, individuals; ministerial officer might, his discretion, issue powerful process . leaving debtor remedy, appeal country, if unjust. But anomaly exist; imputation cannot cast legislature States." 8 Committees Houses endorsed view. undertaking comprehensive rethinking place agencies regime separate powers culminated passage Procedure Act (APA), §§ 551-559, 701-706, Senate Committee Judiciary remarked: "Very rarely statutes withhold It never been policy prevent being judicially confined scope authority objectives specified. Its could otherwise, effect blank checks drawn credit board." S.Rep. 752, 79th Cong., 1st Sess., 26 (1945). 10 Accord, H.R.Rep. 1980, 2d 41 (1946), U.S.Code Cong.Serv. 1946, p. 1195. House Representatives ordinarily review, emphasized clarity must expressed: 11 "The merely advisory when they relate agencies, more cases. bill statute, withholding face give it. mere failure provide specially review." Ibid. 12 Taking up Report, Harlan reaffirmed Court's holding Rusk Cort, 369 367, 379-380, 82 787, 794-795, 809 (1962), "only 'clear evidence' Abbott U.S., 141, S.Ct., 1511 (citations omitted). This standard invoked time again considering discharged "the heavy burden overcoming mean prohibit decision," Dunlop Bachowski, 421 560, 567, 95 1851, 1857, 44 377 (1975).3 13 Subject constraints, can, course, make exceptions historic practice whereby is, after all, presumption, "like presumptions used interpreting statutes, may overcome by," inter alia, "specific reliable indicator congressional intent," " 'fairly discernible' detail scheme." Block Community Nutrition Institute, 467 340, 349, 351, 104 2450, 2456, 2457, 81 270 (1984).4 14 case, asserts two remove grant general federal-question jurisdiction found 28 1331. First, contends "Appeal individuals," forecloses taken failing while simultaneously authorizing "any determination A," 1395ff(b)(1)(C). Second, makes expressly precludes otherwise provided find argument persuasive. II 15 Section explicit authorization bar.5 As matter, '[t]he fact acts made reviewable suffice support implication exclusion others. excluded slender indeterminate intent.' (quoting 357 (1965)). Barlow Collins, 397 159, 166, 832, 837, 25 192 (1970); Stark Wickard, 321 288, 309, 64 559, 570, 88 733 (1944). 16 however, situation somewhat complex. Under here, contracts private health insurance carriers individuals voluntarily remit premiums. optional coverage, federally subsidized, supplements mandatory institutional (such coverage hospital expenses) A. amount-in-controversy requirement, delayed insufficient respect afforded "opportunity fair hearing carrier," 1395u(b)(3)(C) (emphasis added); comparison, subject like similarly entitled "to thereon review," 1395ff(b)(1)(C), (b)(2) II). "In context statute's precisely provisions," 208, 1654, (1982), further deliberately intended claims." Not limiting our text, investigated "confirm[ed] view," ibid., disclosed 'avoid overloading courts' 'trivial matters,' consequence 'unduly ta[x]' federal system 'little real value' derived participants 210, 13, 1655, 118 Cong.Rec. 33992 (1972) (remarks Sen. Bennett)). 17 Respondents' federal-court foreclosed construed provision Erika. carefully 1395ff(b)(1)(C) payment" 1395u(b)(3)(C), mounted clear, legality, relevant Program" considered "fair hearing" carrier resolve grievance award.6 result, attack kind described Erika determination" decides particular claim" denies 1654. borne out Report original 1965 legislation reveals intention "judicial concerning where claims probably substantially smaller A." 404, 89th 54-55 (1965), Cong. & Admin.News 1965, pp. 1943, 1995 added). "carriers, Secretary, beneficiary complaints regarding benefits." 213, 47 (1965) ("Under supplementary plan [Part B], carriers, benefits" added)). pertinent 1972 amendment likewise precluded controversies benefits. Conference explains "there matters solely B." H.R.Conf.Rep. 92-1605, 61 (1972), 1972, 4989, 5394 Senator Bennett's introductory explanation confirms preclusion awards—designed avoid quite minor matters"—embraced "decisions given service." (1972). feared "[i]f available denied, decisions held, resources unduly taxed little value enrollees. proposed clarify law trivial because unclear." 206, 1653, "of adverse payments."7 19 Careful analysis thus bar awarded delegated task finally determine conformity instructions Secretary. conclude, therefore, those leave conducted carrier—including regulations—are insulated III 20 light express millions what characterized "trivial" claims, implausible think adjudicate nevertheless maintains accomplish string citation "shall also subchapter same extent chapter." turn, reads full follows: 21 "(h) Finality findings binding were parties hearing. No reviewed person, tribunal, governmental herein provided. States, employee thereof brought 1331 1346 title recover arising subchapter." 22 third sentence prevents resort contained 1331.8 finds construction Weinberger Salfi, 422 749, 756-762, 2462-2465, 45 522 (1975), Heckler Ringer, 466 602, 614-616, 620-626, 2013, 2021, 2022, 80 622 (1984). Respondents counter dispositions these consistent view procedures exclusive, circumvented courts.9 Cf. 764-765, 2466-2467; 621-622, 2025. 23 Whichever better reading Salfi need pass establishing amendments thereto determinations"—i.e., "quite matters," Bennett), remitted exclusively adjudication hearing."10 By token, delegate regulations, cognizable law. intent, indulge Government's assumption contemplated monetary program.11 extreme position, one most reluctant adopt without "a evidence,' 1511, "strong review" 1857. presume obey commands and, accordingly, expects relief violates command. surmounted here.12 judgment 24 Affirmed. REHNQUIST Fourth Circuit, conflict Sixth Starnes Schweiker, 748 217, 218 (1984) (per curiam ), cert. 471 1017, 105 85 304 (1985). fact, so twice. first certiorari allow consider jurisdictional ruling 1223, 2673, 870 On remand, ultimately decided reinstate judgment, see 1985); 751 1984), whereupon issued before us. 474 815, 58, See, e.g., Lindahl Office Personnel Management, 470 768, 778, 1620, 1626, 84 674 (1985); 1857; Citizens Preserve Overton Park Volpe, 401 402, 410, 814, 820, 136 (1971); 166-167, 837-838, (1970) ("Indeed, adminsitrative rule, nonreviewability exception demonstrated"). Wong Wing Hang INS, 360 715, 718 (CA2 1966) (Friendly, J.) ("[O]nly rare—some say non-existent—case 'abuse' precluded"). Of "never applied strict evidentiary sense"; nevertheless, serves useful reminder that, doubt about exists, favoring controlling." 350-351, wealth scholarly literature. K. Davis, Law 9:6, 240 (1979) (praising since 1974" "strongly side reviewability"); 327 ("An island entire itself. many rooms magnificent mansion subordination proclaim premise each into harmony totality law, hand, book large, principles conceptions 'common law,' ultimate guarantees associated Constitution"); Schwartz, 8.1, 436 (2d 1984) ("The responsibility enforcing grants function; [w]ithout naught empty words"); Right Review I, 71 Harv.L.Rev. 401, 432 (1958) ("[J]udicial rule. basic right; power exclude specifically manifest"); Shapiro, Discretion: Next Stage, 92 Yale L.J. 1487, 1489, (1983) (since APA, sustained effort "continuously narro[w] category discretionary exempted review"). necessary inferred contemporaneous barring acquiescence it, see, Ludecke Watkins, 335 160, 68 1429, 1881 (1948), collective import behind Heikkila Barber, 345 229, 73 603, 97 972 (1953). More purposes inferences scheme whole. Morris Gressette, 491, 2411, 53 506 (1977); Switchmen National Mediation Board, 320 297, 95, (1943)." 2456. text "(a) Entitlement A, accordance prescribed him. "(b) Appeal "(1) Any dissatisfied subsection to— "(A) meets conditions 426 426a [which set forth eligibility requirements satisfied permitted participate program], "(B) eligible enroll enrolled pursuant [the program] ., or, "(C) (including zero) 405(b) 405(g) title." Carrier's Manual 12016 405.820 designates officer, 405.823, circumscribed exercising conduct 1842(b)(3)(C) comply XVIII thereunder, well statements, instructions, guides Care Financing Administration agreement carriers." 405.860. One compilation prepared "Carrier's Manual." Manual, quoted "Authority—the HO [Hearing Officer] occupies significant position appeals process. Authority limited HCFA. overrule interpret them way HCFA disagrees intent; use vehicle commenting Program." fourth footnote 608-609, 4, 2018, relies proposition forum, "claims Id., 609, 4. single disposed rested entirely companion Schweiker McClure, 188, 1665, (1982). (Schweiker upheld constitutionality proceedings Due Process Clause attack.) not, sentence, extend beyond determinations" Ringer concerned. argues challenged "decision Secretary" second excepts "revie[w] tribunal." decision, ignores contextual definition "decision" hearing." sentences 405(h)," 757, 2462, "assure exhaustion required." here requirement hearing, exhaust. Ellis Blum, 643 68, 74 1981) J.). 734, 76th 52 (1939); 728, 43-44 (1939). connection bears mention summarized preceding speaks generically, probative enacting 1395ff. 54 ("Appeals"); ("CLARIFICATION MEDICARE APPEAL PROCEDURES"); 33991 ("DETERMINATIONS AND APPEALS") (caption Bennett). open floodgates Unlike benefits, affects vast sums money differs qualitatively matters" hearings carriers. addition, commentator pointed out, "permitting [of] result costly flood litigation, can readily established, times even case." Note, 792 (footnote observed litigation years operation seriously inundated future. Our disposition avoids "serious question" arise deny 762, 2465 Johnson Robison, 415 361, 366-367, 94 1160, 1165-1166, 39 389 (1974). Yakus 414, 433-444, 660, 671-677, 834 (1944); St. Joseph Stock Yards Co. 298 38, 84, 56 720, 740, 1033 (1936) (Brandeis, concurring); Gunther, Congressional Power Curtail Jurisdiction: An Opinionated Guide Ongoing Debate, 36 Stan.L.Rev. 895, 921, 113 ("[A]ll agree remedies rights"). Hart, Limit Jurisdiction Courts: Exercise Dialectic, 66 1362, 1378-1379 accords resolved Although notes, accurately, McClure question, hardly charged overlooking point. argued announced day concern competence B; written Member authored immediately precedes Reports, contains number cross-references opinion. Finally, cannot, us, dismiss insubstantial—that say, "essentially fictitious," "obviously frivolous," merit"—under Hagans Lavine, 528, 537, 1372, 1379, 577 (1974) (internal quotations omitted), decline over Both below classification embodied "irrational," supra, 668-669, although finding surely casts sufficient Equal Protection Clauses merit resolution challenge.

Category: 8