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

14 MAINE COMMUNITY HEALTH OPTIONS v. UNITED STATES 

Opinion of the Court 

States Government . . . may not . . . make or authorize an 
expenditure or obligation exceeding an amount available in 
an appropriation or fund for the expenditure or obligation”). 
As  we  have  explained,  “ ‘[a]n  appropriation  per se  merely
imposes  limitations  upon  the  Government’s  own  agents,’ ” 
but “ ‘its insufficiency does not pay the Government’s debts, 
nor cancel its obligations.’ ”  Ramah, 567 U. S., at 197 (quot-
ing Ferris v. United States, 27 Ct. Cl. 542, 546 (1892)).  If 
anything,  the  Anti-Deficiency  Act  confirms  that  Congress 
can  create  obligations  without  contemporaneous  funding 
sources: That Act’s prohibitions give way “as specified” or 
“authorized”  by  “any  other  provision  of  law.”    31  U. S. C. 
§1341(a)(1).  Here, the Government’s obligation was author-
ized by the Risk Corridors statute. 

And  contrary  to  the  Government’s  view,  §1342’s
obligation-creating language does not turn on whether Con-
gress  expressly  provided  “budget  authority”  before  appro-
priating funds.  Budget authority is an agency’s power “pro-
vided by Federal law to incur financial obligations,” 88 Stat.
297, 2 U. S. C. §622(2)(A), “that will result in immediate or 
future outlays of government funds,” GAO Redbook 2–1; see 
also id., at 2–55 (“Agencies may incur obligations only after 
Congress  grants  budget  authority”);  GAO,  A  Glossary  of
Terms Used in the Federal Budget Process, at 20–21.  As 
explained  above,  Congress  usually  gives  budget  authority 
through an appropriations Act or by expressly granting an
agency authority to contract for the Government.  See GAO 
Redbook 2–1 to 2–5.  But budget authority is not necessary 
for Congress itself to create an obligation by statute.  See 
Langston,  118  U. S.,  at  394;  cf.  Raines  v.  Byrd,  521  U. S. 
811,  815  (1997)  (treating  legal  obligations  of  the  Govern-
ment as distinct from budget authority).

The  Government’s  arguments  also  conflict  with  well-
settled  principles  of  statutory  interpretation.    At  bottom, 
the Government contends that the existence and extent of