Document ID: ./input/supremecourt_opinions/opinions/boundvolumes/529bv.pdf
Page Number: 125.0

529US1

Unit: $U32

[10-04-01 09:20:54] PAGES PGT: OPIN

50

SHALALA v. ILLINOIS COUNCIL ON LONG
TERM CARE, INC.
Thomas, J., dissenting

to the public, 42 U. S. C. § 1395i–3(g)(5)(A), and posted on
the Health Care Finance Authority’s Internet website,
Reply Brief for Petitioners 20, n. 20.13 Such negative pub-
licity, which occurs before the nursing home may avail itself
of administrative or judicial review via § 1395cc(h), is likely
to result in substantial reputational harm. See Gardner v.
Toilet Goods Assn., Inc., 387 U. S. 167, 172 (1967) (“Respond-
ents note the importance of public good will in their indus-
try, and not without reason fear the disastrous impact of
an announcement that their cosmetics have been seized as
‘adulterated’ ”).

I recount these allegations of hardship to respondent’s
members not because they inform any case-by-case applica-
tion of the presumption in favor of preenforcement review,
but rather because such concerns motivate the presumption
in a general sense. A case-by-case inquiry into hardship is
accommodated instead by ripeness doctrine, which “evalu-
ate[s] both the ﬁtness of the issues for judicial decision and
the hardship to the parties of withholding court consid-
eration.” Abbott Laboratories, 387 U. S., at 149 (emphasis
I read our cases to establish just this sort of analy-
added).
sis: (1) in light of the presumption, construe an ambiguous
statute in favor of preenforcement review; (2) apply ripe-
ness doctrine to determine whether the suit should be
in Abbott Laboratories and its two
entertained. Thus,
companion cases, we construed an ambiguous statute to
permit preenforcement review, see id., at 148; Gardner v.
Toilet Goods Assn., supra, at 168; Toilet Goods Assn., Inc.
v. Gardner, 387 U. S. 158, 160 (1967), but we then proceeded
to hold that only the suits in the ﬁrst two of these cases were

13 While the Secretary represents, Reply Brief for Petitioners 20, n. 20,
and the Court accepts, ante, at 22, that a deﬁcient nursing home may
post a response on the website, respondent’s amici American Health Care
Association et al. assert that the website does not accommodate provider
comments, but only lists the date a facility has corrected a deﬁciency, Brief
for American Health Care Association et al. as Amici Curiae 18.