Document ID: ./input/supremecourt_opinions/opinions/boundvolumes/529bv.pdf
Page Number: 114

529US1

Unit: $U32

[10-04-01 09:20:53] PAGES PGT: OPIN

Cite as: 529 U. S. 1 (2000)

39

Thomas, J., dissenting

tions, but instead mounts a general challenge to the Secre-
tary’s regulations (and manual) prescribing inspection and
enforcement procedures for the teams that survey participat-
ing nursing homes, 59 Fed. Reg. 56116 (1994), claiming that
these were promulgated without notice and comment, are
unconstitutionally vague, contravene the Medicare Act’s re-
quirement of enforcement consistency, and violate due proc-
ess by affording insufﬁcient administrative review. Like the
Michigan Academy plaintiffs, who challenged the Secre-
tary’s regulation concerning the payment of beneﬁts for phy-
sicians’ services, 476 U. S., at 668, respondent may proceed
in District Court under general federal-question jurisdiction.
Perhaps recognizing that this result follows straight-
forwardly from what our Michigan Academy opinion actu-
ally says, the majority creatively recasts that decision as
having established an exception to § 1395ii’s incorporation of
§ 405(h): Section 1395ii will not apply “where its application
to a particular category of cases, such as Medicare Part B
‘methodology’ challenges, would not lead to a channeling of
review through the agency, but would mean no review at
In doing so, the Court confuses the rea-
all.” Ante, at 17.
soning (more precisely, one half of the reasoning) of Michi-
gan Academy with the holding in that case.
In Michigan
Academy, we undoubtedly relied on the reality that, if the
challenge to the Secretary’s regulations were not allowed
to proceed under general federal-question jurisdiction, the
Secretary’s administration of Part B beneﬁt amount deter-
minations would be entirely insulated from judicial review, a
result in tension with the “ ‘strong presumption that Con-
gress did not mean to prohibit all judicial review’ of execu-
tive action.” 8
476 U. S., at 681 (quoting Dunlop v. Bachow-

8 The majority opinion may enjoy the “virtu[e] of consistency with Mich-
igan Academy’s actual language,” ante, at 19—but only some of the lan-
guage, and not the most important part. As I explain in the text, the
language that the majority opinion purports to track merely sets forth one
of the two rationales for the holding in Michigan Academy. My reading