Document ID: ./input/supremecourt_opinions/opinions/19pdf/18-1023_m64o.pdf
Page Number: 43

8  MAINE COMMUNITY HEALTH OPTIONS v. UNITED STATES 

ALITO, J., dissenting 

briefing and argument that we have received have not fully 
addressed this important question, I would request supple-
mental  briefing  and  set  the  cases  for  re-argument  next 
Term. 

For these reasons, I respectfully dissent. 

—————— 

The Court is flatly wrong in saying that the test in Alexander v. Sand-
oval, 532 U. S. 275, 286 (2001)—whether a statute “displays an intent to 
create not just a private right but also a private remedy”—is “precisely”
the same as its “money-mandating inquiry.”  Ante, at 25, n. 12.  In fact, 
the “money-mandating inquiry” is precisely contrary to the statement in 
Sandoval.  Sandoval said unequivocally that it is not enough if a statute 
merely “displays an intent to create . . . a private right,” 532 U. S., at 286, 
but according to the Court, it is sufficient for a statute to manifest only
an intent to create a right to receive money. 

The Court asserts that there is no real difference between the billion-
dollar private right of action that the Court now creates on behalf of so-
phisticated economic actors and our prior precedents, ante, at 30, n. 14, 
but the Court does not identify analogous precedents—perhaps because 
there are none to cite.