Document ID: ./input/supremecourt_opinions/opinions/19pdf/18-1023_m64o.pdf
Page Number: 20

16 MAINE COMMUNITY HEALTH OPTIONS v. UNITED STATES 

Opinion of the Court 

This Court generally presumes that “ ‘when Congress in-
cludes  particular  language  in  one  section  of  a  statute  but 
omits  it  in  another,’ ”  Congress  “ ‘intended  a  difference  in 
meaning.’ ”  Digital Realty Trust, Inc. v. Somers, 583 U. S. 
___, ___ (2018) (slip op., at 10) (quoting Loughrin v. United 
States, 573 U. S. 351, 358 (2014) (alterations omitted)).  The 
Court  likewise  hesitates  “ ‘to  adopt  an  interpretation  of  a 
congressional  enactment  which  renders  superfluous
another portion of that same law.’ ”  Republic of Sudan v. 
Harrison, 587 U. S. ___, ___ (2019) (slip op., at 10) (quoting 
Mackey  v.  Lanier  Collection  Agency  &  Service,  Inc.,  486 
U. S. 825, 837 (1988)).  The “subject to appropriations” and
payment-capping language in other sections of the Afforda-
ble  Care  Act  would  be meaningless  had  §1342  simultane-
ously achieved the same end with silence.

In sum, the plain terms of the Risk Corridors provision 
created an obligation neither contingent on nor limited by
the availability of appropriations or other funds. 

III 
The  next  question  is  whether  Congress  impliedly  re-
pealed the obligation through its appropriations riders.  It 
did not. 

A 
Because  Congress  did  not  expressly  repeal  §1342,  the
Government seeks to show that Congress impliedly did so.
But  “repeals  by  implication  are  not  favored,”  Morton  v. 
Mancari,  417  U. S.  535,  549  (1974)  (internal  quotation 
marks omitted), and are a “rarity,” J. E. M. Ag Supply, Inc. 
v. Pioneer Hi-Bred Int’l, Inc., 534 U. S. 124, 142 (2001) (in-

—————— 

These  common  limitations—and  our  discussion  below,  see  Part  IV, 
infra—diminish the dissent’s concern that other statutes may support a 
damages  action  in  the  Court  of  Federal  Claims.    Post,  at  3  (opinion  of
ALITO, J.).