Document ID: ./input/supremecourt_opinions/opinions/19pdf/18-1023_m64o.pdf
Page Number: 12

8  MAINE COMMUNITY HEALTH OPTIONS v. UNITED STATES 

Opinion of the Court 

A divided panel of the United States Court of Appeals for 
the  Federal  Circuit  ruled  for  the  Government  in  each  ap-
peal.  See 892 F. 3d 1311; 892 F. 3d 1184 (2018); 729 Fed.
Appx. 939 (2018).  As relevant here, the Federal Circuit con-
cluded that §1342 had initially created a Government obli-
gation to pay the full amounts that petitioners sought un-
der  the  statutory  formula.    See  892  F. 3d,  at  1320–1322. 
The court also recognized that “it has long been the law that 
the government may incur a debt independent of an appro-
priation  to  satisfy  that  debt,  at  least  in  certain  circum-
stances.”  Id., at 1321. 

Even so, the court held that Congress’ appropriations rid-
ers impliedly “repealed or suspended” the Government’s ob-
ligation.  Id.,  at  1322.    Although  the  panel  acknowledged
that  “[r]epeals  by  implication  are  generally  disfavored”—
especially  when  the  “alleged  repeal  occurred  in  an  appro-
priations bill”—it found that the riders here “adequately ex-
pressed  Congress’s  intent  to  suspend”  the  Government’s
payments  to  unprofitable  plans  “beyond  the  sum  of  pay-
ments” it collected from profitable plans.  Id., at 1322–1323, 
1325. 

Judge  Newman  dissented,  observing  that  the  Govern-
ment  had  not  identified  any  “statement  of  abrogation  or
amendment of the statute,” nor any “disclaimer” of the Gov-
ernment’s  “statutory  and  contractual  commitments.”    Id., 
at 1335.  The dissent also reasoned that precedent under-
mined  the  court’s  conclusion  and  that  the  appropriations
riders  could  not  apply  retroactively  because  the  Govern-
ment had used the Risk Corridors program to induce insur-
ers to enter the exchanges.  Id., at 1336–1339.  Emphasizing 
the importance of Government credibility in public-private
enterprise, the dissent warned that the majority’s decision
would  “undermin[e]  the  reliability  of  dealings  with  the
government.”  Id., at 1340. 

—————— 
Cl. 1 (2017) (dismissing Maine Community Health’s statutory claims).