Document ID: ./input/supremecourt_opinions/opinions/boundvolumes/529bv.pdf
Page Number: 110.0

529US1

Unit: $U32

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

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

35

Thomas, J., dissenting

Our opinion in Ringer was equally silent on the meaning
of § 1395ii, this time assuming in passing that it operates
as a garden variety incorporating reference of § 405(h),4 an
assumption shared by the parties to the case, see Brief
for Petitioners 18, 22, and Brief for Respondents 26–29, in
Heckler v. Ringer, O. T. 1983, No. 82–1772. Ringer involved
a dispute over reimbursement for a surgical procedure under
Part A of the Act, see 466 U. S., at 608–609, n. 4, so, unlike
in Erika (which involved Part B), it was clear that the in-
dividual plaintiffs could seek judicial review under § 1395ff
(via § 405(g)) after they had presented a claim for beneﬁts to
the Secretary and suffered an unfavorable ﬁnal decision.
But the plaintiffs chose not to follow this route to review.
Instead, they attempted to challenge the Secretary’s policy
prohibiting reimbursement for the surgery as violating con-
stitutional due process and several statutory provisions, in-
voking general federal-question jurisdiction.5 As noted, we
assumed that § 1395ii incorporates § 405(h) in the situation
of a preenforcement challenge to the Secretary’s Medicare
Act regulations and policies, and held that § 405(h)’s third
sentence—“No action against the United States, the [Secre-
tary], or any ofﬁcer or employee thereof shall be brought
under section 1331 or 1346 of title 28 to recover on any claim
arising under this subchapter”—expressly precluded Ring-
er’s suit. Ringer, 466 U. S., at 615–616.

4 See Heckler v. Ringer, 466 U. S. 602, 614–615 (1984) (“The third sen-
tence of 42 U. S. C. § 405(h), made applicable to the Medicare Act by 42
U. S. C. § 1395ii, provides that § 405(g), to the exclusion of 28 U. S. C.
§ 1331, is the sole avenue for judicial review for all ‘claim[s] arising under’
the Medicare Act” (alteration in original)).

5 The plaintiffs also asserted, to no avail, that the District Court had
jurisdiction under 28 U. S. C. § 1361 (mandamus) and 42 U. S. C. § 1395ff
(1982 ed. and Supp. II) ( judicial review of Part A beneﬁt amount determi-
nations). See Ringer, supra, at 617–618.