Document ID: ./input/supremecourt_opinions/opinions/boundvolumes/529bv.pdf
Page Number: 126.0

529US1

Unit: $U32

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

Cite as: 529 U. S. 1 (2000)

51

Thomas, J., dissenting

ripe, Abbott Laboratories, supra, at 156; Gardner v. Toilet
Goods Assn., supra, at 170; Toilet Goods Assn. v. Gardner,
supra, at 160–161. See also Reno v. Catholic Social Serv-
ices, Inc., 509 U. S. 43, 56–66 (1993) (similar).
In line with
this mode of analysis, the court below, after concluding
that the Medicare Act does not preclude general federal-
question jurisdiction over a preenforcement challenge to
the Secretary’s regulations, held that respondent’s APA
notice-and-comment challenge was ripe but that its consti-
tutional vagueness claim was not. 143 F. 3d, at 1076–1077.
While I express no view on the proper application of ripe-
ness doctrine to respondent’s claims,14 I am conﬁdent that
this method of analysis enjoys substantially more support
in our cases than does the majority’s approach, which pre-
scribes a case-by-case hardship inquiry at the threshold
stage of determining whether preenforcement review has
been precluded by statute. See ante, at 20 (holding that
§ 1395ii does not incorporate § 405(h) where the aggrieved
party “can obtain no review at all unless it can obtain judicial
review in a § 1331 action”). While the majority’s variation
would be harmless if its hardship test were no more strin-
gent than the hardship prong of ordinary ripeness doctrine,
I presume its test is more exacting—otherwise the majority
opinion is no more than a well-disguised application of ripe-
ness doctrine to the facts of this case.15 At bottom, then,
the majority superimposes a more burdensome hardship test
on ordinary ripeness doctrine for aggrieved persons who

14 The Secretary did not seek review of the Court of Appeals’ hold-
ing that respondent’s APA notice-and-comment challenge is ripe, Pet. for
Cert. I, and this Court denied respondent’s cross-petition for certiorari
seeking review of the Court of Appeals’ holding that respondent’s vague-
ness challenge is not ripe, 526 U. S. 1067 (1999).

15 The majority acknowledges that its hardship test is more burden-
some than the hardship prong of ripeness doctrine in at least one respect.
We are told that the relevant hardship is not that endured by the “individ-
ual plaintiff,” but rather that confronted by the “class” of persons similarly
situated to the individual plaintiff. Ante, at 22–23; see supra, at 42–43.