Document ID: ./input/supremecourt_opinions/opinions/21pdf/21a240_d18e.pdf
Page Number: 22.0

4 

BIDEN v. MISSOURI 

ALITO, J., dissenting 

CMS argues that its delay, “even if true,” does not provide
a “reason to block a rule” that it claims will protect patient
health.  Application in No. 21A241, p. 36.  It claims that its 
departure from ordinary procedure after extraordinary de-
lay should be excused because nobody can show they were
prejudiced by the lack of a comment period before the rule 
took effect.  But it is CMS’s affirmative burden to show it 
has good cause, not respondents’ burden to prove the nega-
tive.  Northern Arapahoe Tribe v. Hodel, 808 F. 2d 741, 751 
(CA10 1987).  Congress placed procedural safeguards on ex-
ecutive rulemaking so agencies would consider “important
aspect[s] of the problem[s]” they seek to address before re-
stricting  the  liberty  of  the  people  they  regulate.    State 
Farm, 463 U. S., at 43.  Because CMS chose to circumvent 
notice-and-comment, States that run Medicaid facilities, as 
well as other regulated parties, had no opportunity to pre-
sent evidence refuting or contradicting CMS’s justifications 
before  the  rule  bound  them.  And  because  CMS  acknowl-
edged its own “uncertainty” and the “rapidly changing na-
ture of the current pandemic,” 86 Fed. Reg. 61589, it should 
have been more receptive to feedback, not less.  “[A]n utter
failure to comply with notice and comment cannot be con-
sidered harmless if there is any uncertainty at all as to the 
effect of that failure.”  Sugar Cane Growers Cooperative of 
Florida v. Veneman, 289 F. 3d 89, 96 (CADC 2002). 

Today’s decision will ripple through administrative agen-
cies’ future decisionmaking.  The Executive Branch already
touches nearly every aspect of Americans’ lives.  In conclud-
ing that CMS had good cause to avoid notice-and-comment 
rulemaking, the Court shifts the presumption against com-
pliance  with  procedural  strictures  from  the  unelected
agency to the people they regulate.  Neither CMS nor the 
Court articulates a limiting principle for why, after an un-
explained  and  unjustified  delay,  an  agency  can  regulate
first  and  listen  later,  and  then  put  more  than  10  million