Document ID: ./input/supremecourt_opinions/opinions/19pdf/18-1023_m64o.pdf
Page Number: 2.0

2  MAINE COMMUNITY HEALTH OPTIONS v. UNITED STATES 

Syllabus 

losses as calculated by the statutory formula and sought a money judg-
ment for the unpaid sums owed.  Only one petitioner prevailed in the
trial courts, and the Federal Circuit ruled for the Government in each 
appeal, holding that §1342 had initially created a Government obliga-
tion to pay the full amounts, but that the subsequent appropriations
riders impliedly “repealed or suspended” that obligation. 

Held: 

1. The  Risk  Corridors  statute  created  a  Government  obligation  to 

pay insurers the full amount set out in §1342’s formula.  Pp. 9–16.

(a) The  Government  may  incur  an  obligation  directly  through
statutory language, without also providing details about how the obli-
gation must be satisfied.  See United States v. Langston, 118 U. S. 389. 
Pp. 9–11.

(b) Section  1342  imposed  a  legal  duty  of  the  United  States  that
could mature into a legal liability through the insurers’ participation
in the exchanges.  This conclusion flows from the express terms and
context of §1342, which imposed an obligation by using the mandatory
term  “shall.”    The  section’s  mandatory  nature  is  underscored  by  the
adjacent provisions, which differentiate between when the HHS Sec-
retary “shall” take certain actions and when she “may” exercise discre-
tion.  See §§1341(b)(2), 1343(b).  Section 1342 neither requires the Risk 
Corridors program to be budget-neutral nor suggests that the Secre-
tary’s payments to unprofitable plans pivoted on profitable plans’ pay-
ments  to  the  Secretary  or  that  a  partial  payment  would  satisfy  the 
Government’s whole obligation.  It thus must be given its plain mean-
ing: The Government “shall pay” the sum prescribed by §1342.  Pp. 11– 
13. 

(c) Contrary to the Government’s contention, neither the Appro-
priations Clause nor the Anti-Deficiency Act addresses whether Con-
gress itself can create or incur an obligation directly by statute.  Nor 
does  §1342’s  obligation-creating  language turn  on  whether  Congress
expressly provided budget authority before appropriating funds.  The 
Government’s  arguments  also  conflict  with  well-settled  principles  of 
statutory  interpretation.    That  §1342  contains  no  language  limiting
the obligation to the availability of appropriations, while Congress ex-
pressly used such limiting language in other Affordable Care Act pro-
visions,  indicates  that  Congress  intended  a  different  meaning  in 
§1342.  Pp. 13–16.

2. Congress did not impliedly repeal the obligation through its ap-

propriations riders.  Pp. 16–23.

(a) Because “ ‘repeals by implication are not favored,’ ” Morton v. 
Mancari, 417 U. S. 535, 549, this Court will regard each of two statutes
effective unless Congress’ intention to repeal is “ ‘clear and manifest,’ ” 
or the laws are “irreconcilable,” id., at 550–551.  In the appropriations