Document ID: ./input/supremecourt_opinions/opinions/21pdf/21a240_d18e.pdf
Page Number: 9

Cite as:  595 U. S. ____ (2022) 

9 

Per Curiam 

advance of the winter flu season would significantly reduce 
COVID–19 infections, hospitalizations, and deaths, 86 Fed. 
Reg.  61584–61586,  constitutes  the  “something  specific,” 
post, at 3 (dissenting opinion), required to forgo notice and 
comment.  And we cannot say that in this instance the two 
months  the  agency  took  to  prepare  a  73-page  rule  consti-
tutes  “delay”  inconsistent  with  the  Secretary’s  finding  of
good  cause.  Second,  we  agree  with  the  Secretary  that  he
was not required to “consult with appropriate State agen-
cies,” 42 U. S. C. §1395z, in advance of issuing the interim
rule.  Consistent with the existence of the good cause excep-
tion, which was properly invoked here, consultation during
the deferred notice-and-comment period is permissible.  We 
similarly concur with the Secretary that he need not pre-
pare a regulatory impact analysis discussing a rule’s effect 
on small rural hospitals when he acts through an interim
final rule; that requirement applies only where the Secre-
tary proceeds on the basis of a “notice of proposed rulemak-
ing,” §1302(b)(1), followed by a “final version of [the] rule,” 
§1302(b)(2).  Lastly, the rule does not run afoul of the di-
rective in §1395 that federal officials may not “exercise any 
supervision or control over the . . . manner in which medical 
services are provided, or over the selection [or] tenure . . . of 
any officer or employee of ” any facility.  That reading of sec-
tion 1395 would mean that nearly every condition of partic-
ipation the Secretary has long insisted upon is unlawful. 

* 

* 

* 
The challenges posed by a global pandemic do not allow a 
federal agency to exercise power that Congress has not con-
ferred upon it.  At the same time, such unprecedented cir-
cumstances provide no grounds for limiting the exercise of
authorities  the  agency  has  long  been  recognized  to  have.
Because the latter principle governs in these cases, the ap-
plications  for  a  stay  presented  to  JUSTICE  ALITO  and 
JUSTICE KAVANAUGH and by them referred to the Court are