Document ID: ./input/supremecourt_opinions/opinions/19pdf/18-1023_m64o.pdf
Page Number: 27

Cite as:  590 U. S. ____ (2020) 

23 

Opinion of the Court 

nor the appropriations rider said anything requiring budget 
neutrality or redefining §1342’s formula.11 

The  GAO  letter  is  even  more  inapt.    In  it,  the  GAO  re-
sponded  to  two  legislators’  inquiry  by  identifying  two
sources of available funding for the first year of Risk Corri-
dors payments: CMS’ appropriations for the 2014 fiscal year 
and profitable insurance plans’ payments to the Secretary.
892 F. 3d, at 1318; see also App. in No. 17–1994 (CA Fed.),
pp.  234–240.  Because  the  rider  cut  off  the  first  source  of 
funds, the Federal Circuit inferred congressional intent “to
temporarily  cap”  the  Government’s  payments  “at  the 
amount of payments” profitable plans made “for each of the
applicable years” of the Risk Corridors program.  892 F. 3d, 
at 1325.  That was error.  The letter has little value because 
it  appears  nowhere  in  the  legislative  record.   Perhaps  for
that reason, the Government does not rely on it. 

IV 

Having found that the Risk Corridors statute established 
a  valid  yet  unfulfilled  Government  obligation,  this  Court 
must turn to a final question: Where does petitioners’ law-
suit belong, and for what relief?  We hold that petitioners
properly relied on the Tucker Act to sue for damages in the 
Court of Federal Claims. 

—————— 

11 In  this  implied-repeal  context,  it  is  also  telling  that  Congress
considered—but did not enact—bills containing the type of text that may
have satisfied the clear-expression rule.  See e.g., Obamacare Taxpayer 
Bailout Protection Act, S. 2214, 113th Cong., 2d Sess., §2 (2014) (“ ‘[T]he 
Secretary shall ensure that payments out and payments in . . . are pro-
vided for in amounts that the Secretary determines are necessary to re-
duce to zero the cost . . . to the Federal Government of carrying out the 
program under this section’ ”); Taxpayer Bailout Protection Act, S. 359, 
114th Cong., 1st Sess., §2 (2015) (“ ‘The Secretary shall ensure that the 
amount of payments to plans . . . does not exceed the amount of payments 
to  the  Secretary’ ”  and  “ ‘shall  proportionately  decrease  the  amount  of 
payments to plans’ ”); Taxpayer Bailout Protection Act, H. R. 724, 114th
Cong., 1st Sess., §2 (2015) (same).