Document ID: ./input/supremecourt_opinions/opinions/boundvolumes/529bv.pdf
Page Number: 99.0

529US1

Unit: $U32

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

24

SHALALA v. ILLINOIS COUNCIL ON LONG
TERM CARE, INC.
Opinion of the Court

U. S., at 215, and n. 20; Haitian Refugee Center, supra, at
494; Ringer, 466 U. S., at 617; Salﬁ, supra, at 762, including,
where necessary, the authority to develop an evidentiary
record.

Proceeding through the agency in this way provides the
agency the opportunity to reconsider its policies, interpreta-
tions, and regulations in light of those challenges. Nor need
it waste time, for the agency can waive many of the proce-
dural steps set forth in § 405(g), see Salﬁ, supra, at 767, and
a court can deem them waived in certain circumstances, see
Eldridge, 424 U. S., at 330–331, even though the agency tech-
nically holds no “hearing” on the claim. See Salﬁ, supra,
at 763–767 (holding that Secretary’s decision not to chal-
lenge the sufﬁciency of the appellees’ exhaustion was in ef-
fect a determination that the agency had rendered a “ﬁnal
decision” within the meaning of § 405(g)); Eldridge, supra,
at 331–332, and n. 11 (invoking practical conception of ﬁ-
nality to conclude that collateral nature of claim and poten-
tial irreparable injury from delayed review satisfy the “ﬁnal
decision” requirement of § 405(g)). At a minimum, however,
the matter must be presented to the agency prior to review
in a federal court. This the Council has not done.

Finally, the Council argues that, because it is an associa-
tion, not an individual, it cannot take advantage of the special
review channel, for the statute authorizes review through
that channel only at the request of a “dissatisﬁed” “insti-
tution or agency.” 42 U. S. C. § 1395cc(h)(1). The Council
speaks only on behalf of its member institutions, and thus has
standing only because of the injury those members allegedly
suffer. See Arizonans for Ofﬁcial English v. Arizona, 520
U. S. 43, 65–66 (1997); Hunt v. Washington State Apple Ad-
vertising Comm’n, 432 U. S. 333, 343 (1977).
It is essentially
their rights to review that are at stake. And the statutes
that create the special review channel adequately protect
those rights.