Document ID: ./input/supremecourt_opinions/opinions/19pdf/18-1023_m64o.pdf
Page Number: 24.0

20 MAINE COMMUNITY HEALTH OPTIONS v. UNITED STATES 

Opinion of the Court 

outcome by completely revoking or suspending the underly-
ing  obligation  before  the  Government  began  incurring  it.
See  United  States  v.  Will,  449  U. S.  200  (1980);  United 
States  v.  Dickerson,  310  U. S.  554  (1940).    Will  concluded 
that  Congress  had  canceled  an  obligation  to  pay  cost-of- 
living  raises  through  appropriations  bills  that  bluntly
stated that future raises “ ‘shall not take effect’ ” or that re-
stricted funds from “ ‘this Act or any other Act.’ ”  449 U. S., 
at 206–207, 223.8  Likewise, Dickerson held that a series of 
appropriations bills repealed an obligation to pay military-
reenlistment  bonuses  due  in  particular  fiscal  years.    See 
310 U. S., at 561.  One enactment “ ‘hereby suspended’ ” the 
bonuses  before  they  took  effect,  and  another  “continued” 
this  suspension  for  additional  years,  providing  that  “ ‘no
part  of  any  appropriation  in  this  or  any  other  Act  for  the 
[next] fiscal year . . . shall be available for the payment [of 
the  bonuses]  notwithstanding’ ”  the  statute  creating  the 
Government’s obligation to pay.  Id., at 555–557. 

Here, by contrast, the appropriations riders did not use
the kind of “shall not take effect” language decisive in Will. 
See  449  U. S.,  at  222–223.    Nor  did  the  riders  purport 
to  “suspen[d]”  §1342  prospectively  or  to  foreclose  funds
from  “any  other  Act”  “notwithstanding”  §1342’s  money-
mandating text.  Dickerson, 310 U. S., at 556–557; see also 
Will, 449 U. S., at 206–207.  Neither Will nor Dickerson sup-
ports the Federal Circuit’s implied-repeal holding. 

The second strand of precedent turned on provisions that 
reformed statutory payment formulas in ways “irreconcila-
ble” with the original methods.  See United States v. Mitch-
ell,  109  U. S.  146,  150  (1883);  see  also  United  States  v. 
Fisher, 109 U. S. 143, 145–146 (1883).  In Mitchell, an ap-

—————— 

8 Still, Will held unconstitutional the changes that purported to reduce
the Government’s payment obligations after the obligation-creating stat-
utes had already taken effect.  See 449 U. S., at 224–226, 230.