Document ID: ./input/supremecourt_opinions/opinions/19pdf/18-1023_m64o.pdf
Page Number: 4

4  MAINE COMMUNITY HEALTH OPTIONS v. UNITED STATES 

Syllabus 

See United States v. Bormes, 568 U. S. 6, 12.  Nor does the Adminis-
trative Procedure Act bar petitioners’ Tucker Act suit.  In contrast to 
Bowen  v.  Massachusetts,  487  U. S.  879,  a  Medicaid  case  where  the 
State sued the HHS Secretary under the Administrative Procedure Act 
in  district  court,  petitioners  here  seek  not  prospective,  nonmonetary 
relief to clarify future obligations but specific sums already calculated, 
past due, and designed to compensate for completed labors.  The Risk 
Corridors  statute  and  Tucker  Act  allow  them  that  remedy.    And  be-
cause  the  Risk  Corridors  program  expired  years  ago,  this  litigation 
presents no special concern, as Bowen did, about managing a complex 
ongoing  relationship  or  tracking  ever-changing  accounting  sheets. 
Pp. 26–30. 

No.  18–1023  and  No.  18–1028  (second  judgment),  729  Fed.  Appx.  939;
No. 18–1028 (first judgment), 892 F. 3d 1311; No. 18–1038, 892 F. 3d
1184, reversed and remanded. 

SOTOMAYOR, J., delivered the opinion of the Court, in which ROBERTS, 
C. J., and GINSBURG, BREYER, KAGAN, and KAVANAUGH, JJ., joined, and in 
which THOMAS and GORSUCH, JJ., joined as to all but Part III–C.  ALITO, 
J., filed a dissenting opinion.