Document ID: ./input/supremecourt_opinions/opinions/19pdf/18-1023_m64o.pdf
Page Number: 22.0

18 MAINE COMMUNITY HEALTH OPTIONS v. UNITED STATES 

Opinion of the Court 

Government obligation to pay bonuses to military service-
men.  233 U. S., at 511–512.  A 1902 statute had provided a 
10 percent bonus to officers serving outside the contiguous 
United States, but in 1906 and 1907, Congress enacted ap-
propriations funding the bonuses for officers “except [those
in] P[ue]rto Rico and Hawaii.”  Id., at 512.  Then, in 1908, 
Congress enacted a statute stating “ ‘[t]hat the increase of 
pay . . . shall be as now provided by law.’ ”  Id., at 513.  When 
Lieutenant Nelson Vulte sought a bonus for his service in
Puerto  Rico  from  1908  to  1909,  the  Government  refused, 
contending that the appropriations Acts had impliedly re-
pealed its obligation altogether.
  Relying on Langston, Vulte rejected that argument.  “[I]t
is  to  be  remembered,”  the  Court  wrote,  that  the  alleged 
repeals “were in appropriation acts and no words were used 
to  indicate  any  other  purpose  than  the  disbursement  of  a
sum of money for the particular fiscal years.”  233 U. S., at 
514.  At  most,  the  appropriations  had  “temporarily  sus-
pend[ed]” payments, but they did not use “ ‘the most clear 
and  positive  terms’ ”  required  to  “modif[y]  or  repea[l]”  the 
Government’s  obligation  itself.  Id.,  at  514–515  (quoting 
Minis v. United States, 15 Pet. 423, 445 (1841)).  Because 
the Government had failed to show that repeal was the only 
‘ “reasonable interpretation’ ” of the appropriation Acts, the
obligation persisted.  233 U. S., at 515 (quoting Minis, 15 
Pet., at 445).

The parallels among Langston, Vulte, and these cases are 
clear.  Here, like in Langston and Vulte, Congress “merely
appropriated a less amount” than that required to satisfy 
the Government’s obligation, without “expressly or by clear
implication modif[ying]” it.  Langston, 118 U. S., at 394; see 
also Vulte, 233 U. S., at 515.  The riders stated that “[n]one 
of the funds made available by this Act,” as opposed to any
other sources of funds, “may be used for payments under” 
the  Risk  Corridors  statute.    §227,  128  Stat.  2491;  accord, 
§225, 129 Stat. 2624; §223, 131 Stat. 543.  But “no words