Document: 529 U.S. 1120 S.Ct. 1084146 L.Ed.2d 1 SyllabusNOTE: Where it is feasible, a syllabus (headnote) will be released, as being done in connection with this case, at the time opinion issued. The constitutes no part of Court but has been prepared by Reporter Decisions for convenience reader. See United States v. Detroit Timber & Lumber Co., 200 321, 337. SUPREME COURT OF THE UNITED STATES SHALALA, SECRETARY HEALTH AND HUMAN SERVICES, et al.v.ILLINOIS COUNCIL ON LONG TERM CARE, INC. CERTIORARI TO APPEALS FOR SEVENTH CIRCUIT No. 98 1109. Argued November 8, 1999.Decided February 29, 2000 Under Medicare Act's special review provisions, nursing home that "dissatisfied determination described subsection (b)(2)" "entitled to hearing . same extent provided in" Social Security Act, 42 C. §405(b), "and judicial Secretary's final decision after such section 405(g) ." U.S.C. § 1395cc(h)(1) (emphasis added). cross-referenced (b)(2) gives petitioner Secretary Health and Human Services (HHS) power terminate provider agreement where, example, she determines failed comply substantially statute regulations. §405(b) describes administrative which "dissatisfied" entitled, §405(g) provides may obtain federal district court "final made Section 405(h), provision Act incorporated into 1395ii "[n]o action recover on any claim arising under" laws shall "brought under [28 §]1331." It channels most, if not all, claims through system. Respondent, Illinois Council Long Term Care, Inc. (Council), an association homes, did rely these provisions when filed suit against, inter alios, petitioners (hereinafter Secretary), challenging validity regulations impose sanctions or remedies homes violate certain substantive standards. Rather, invoked federal-question jurisdiction, 28 1331. In dismissing lack Federal District found interpreted Weinberger Salfi, 422 749, Heckler Ringer, 466 602, barred §1331 suit. Seventh Circuit reversed, holding Bowen Michigan Academy Family Physicians, 476 667, had significantly modified earlier case law. Held: §1395ii, bars jurisdiction here. Pp. 6 21. (a) 405(h) purports make exclusive §405(g)'s method. While its "to language plainly where individual challenges legal ground agency's denial monetary benefit Acts, question here whether anticipatory challenge lawfulness policy, regulation, might later bar recovery authorize imposition penalty also those Acts. 7. (b) Were take account Academy, §405(h), Salfi would clearly lawsuit. latter cases §405(h) applies "both standing basis presentation" supra, 760 761, U.S., 615. All aspects present future benefits must channeled though process. Id., 621 622. As so interpreted, §405(h)'s reaches beyond ordinary law principles "ripeness" "exhaustion remedies" doctrines normally require channeling agency preventing application exceptions doctrines. This nearly absolute requirement assures greater opportunity apply, interpret, revise policies, regulations, statutes without possibly premature interference courts applying "exhaustion" case. assurance comes price occasional individual, delay-related hardship, paying context massive, complex health safety program was justified judgment Congress understood Ringer. Ringer cannot distinguished from instant They themselves foreclose distinctions based upon "potential future" versus "actual present" nature claim, "general legal" "fact-specific" challenge, "collateral" "non-collateral" issues, "declaratory" "injunctive" relief sought. Nor can accept distinction limits scope involve "amounts," neither nor purposes §405 support distinction. Neither McNary Haitian Refugee Center, Inc., 498 479, Mathews Eldridge, 424 319, supports Council's effort distinguish Court's approval against Immigration Naturalization Service rested different immigration statute. And Eldridge respondent complied with, disregarded, procedures specifically nonwaivable nonexcusable before raising court. upshot argument rest primarily Academy. 7 12. (c) not, contrary Appeals' holding, modify holdings limiting scope, "amount determinations." That involved HHS governing used calculate Part B benefits; statute, then existed, provide decisions. ruled silence itself review. response review, declined pass abstract meaning because applicable as" virtue 1395ii. phrase preclude rather than agency. limited Appeals, have overturned dramatically precedents created hardly justifiable between determinations" many similar determinations. does overturn, limit, authority sub silentio, do 12 17. (d) falls within exception all unless unconvincing. argues available only terminates home's agreement. But her brief offers legally permissible interpretation statute: permits dissatisfied agreements, termination some other remedy imposed. See, e.g., Chevron A. Natural Resources Defense Council, 467 837, 843. denies engages practice forces submit corrective plan sacrifice appeal rights order avoid termination, penalizes more severely chooses appeal. Because convincing reason doubt description practice, need decide forced abandon legitimate could amount practical equivalent total If, argues, unlawfully limit channel leading members remain free, following route, contest relevant regulation true even resolve particular contention, "action" finally that, speaking behalf injured members, advantage channel. However, members' are stake, creating adequately protect rights. 17 143 F.3d 1072, reversed. Breyer, J., delivered Court, Rehnquist, O'Connor, Souter, Ginsburg, JJ., joined. Stevens, Scalia, dissenting opinions. Thomas, opinion, Stevens Kennedy, joined, joined except III. Opinion NOTICE: subject formal revision publication preliminary print Reports. Readers requested notify Decisions, Supreme States, Washington, D. 20543, typographical errors, corrections goes press. 1109 2 DONNA E. al., PETITIONERS ILLINOIS 3 WRIT 4 [February 2000] 5 Justice Breyer Court. us one jurisdiction. An sued, another party Secretary) claiming Medicare-related violated various Constitution. court's dismissed lacked believed set statutory creates separate, virtually exclusive, system denials claims; held explicitly (incorporating claim" 1331 title 28"). however, We conclude issue, 8 proceed instead create. 1395cc(h); §1395cc(b)(2)(A); §1395ii; §§405(b), (g), (h). 9 * A 10 begin describing association's lawsuit attacks. payment care beneficiaries stay hospital. To receive payment, enter HHS, numerous regulatory requirements. State agencies enforce requirements inspections. Inspectors report violations, called "deficiencies." "deficiencies" lead "remedies." generally §§1395i 3, 1395cc. 11 issue focus remedies. were promulgated 1994, 59 Fed. Reg. 56116, pursuant 1987 tightened standards (and Medicaid) imposed broadened violators. Omnibus Budget Reconciliation 1987, §§4201 4218, 101 Stat. 1330 160 221 (codified amended 1395i (1994 ed. Supp. III)). remedial related manual) effect tell Medicare-administering how inspectors find divide deficiencies three categories seriousness depending deficiency's severity, prevalence home, relation deficiencies, compliance history. Within each category they list may, must, impose. Where, "immediately jeopardize residents," appoint new, temporary management. less serious, lesser remedies, civil penalties, transfer residents, state monitoring, like. deficient respects, "[s]ubstantial compliance," i.e., create causing minimal harm," sanction all. 3(h); CFR 488.301 (1998); §488.400 seq.; App. 54, 66 (Manual). procedures. 1395cc(b)(2)(A), (h); 431.151 seq. §488.408(g); pt. (1998). 13 complaint attacked unlawful four basic ways. view: (1) terms, "substantial compliance" "minimal unconstitutionally vague; (2) manual, particularly implemented, seeking enforcement consistency, 3(g)(2)(D), exceed legislative mandate Act; (3) inconsistent Constitution's Due Process Clause; (4) manual publications rules consistent Administrative Procedure demands "notice comment" statement "basis purpose," 553. 18 19, 27 38, 43 49 (Amended Complaint). 14 next describe two competing jurisdictional routes arguably seek mount attack. route followed, forth simply states "district original actions Constitution, laws, treaties States." follow, read together. Appendix, infra. says 15 entitled [the §]405(b) 16 "has determined fails [of Act] thereunder §1395cc(b)(2)(A) entitles "determination." "any [Secretary] Separate assessments. §1395i 3(h)(2)(B)(ii); §§1320a 7a(c)(2), (e). 19 provision, claims, says: 20 "(h) Finality [Secretary's] decision. 21 "The findings binding individuals who parties hearing. No fact reviewed person, tribunal, governmental herein provided. [Secretary], officer employee thereof brought 1346 [federal defendant jurisdiction] subchapter." (Emphasis added.) 22 Title makes Act. C 23 began about participating (or program, we described, (Medicaid Court.) said, 96 2953 (ND Ill., Mar. 31, 1997), Pet. Cert. 13a, 15a. doing so, relied 749 (1975), 602 (1984). App 15a 19a. 24 Appeals reversed dismissal. 1072 (CA7 1998). view, 667 (1986), Other Circuits differently. Assn. Homes Servs. Aging Shalala, 127 496, 500 501 (CA6 1997); American Dermatology 118 1495, 1499 1501 (CA11 St. Francis Medical Center 32 805, 812 813 (CA3 1994), cert. denied, 514 1016 (1995); Farkas Blue Cross Shield, 853, 855 860 1994); Abbey Sullivan, 978 F.2d 37, 41 44 (CA2 1992); National Kidney Patients 958 1127, 1130 1134 (CADC 1992), 506 1049 (1993). granted certiorari differences. II 25 method §405(g). Its second sentence provided." §405(h). third sentence, directly here, 26 italicized (or, Medicare) is, alone, uncertain. Those words apply typical seeks (say disability medical procedure), denial. irrespective evidentiary, rule-related, statutory, constitutional, grounds. statute's money by) advance (in action) penalty)? Suppose, group individuals, needing knowledge planning purposes, together bring rule general Is Acts? That, effect, us. III answering question, temporarily put relied, side. mother daughter, filing class constitutionality valid, deny them benefits. 416(c)(5), (e)(2) (imposing duration-of-relationship eligibility surviving wives stepchildren deceased wage earners). daughter appeared completed processes. presumably included had, agency; say. "it both presentation th[e] constitutional contentions." 761. added "irrespective resort processes necessitated discretionary decisions his nondiscretionary allegedly unconstitutional restrictions." 762. pointed out "preclude challenges," "require[d] brought" "jurisdictional grants" "in conformity standards" nonconstitutional Act." Ibid. 29 concede features plaintiff asked direction pay challenged provision. id., thought helped clear arose "under whose [were] sought." reached result despite absence request relief. 616, 623. 30 (under Constitution) reimbursement undergone operation. over action, procedures, amounted declaration invalidity (not requiring payment), yet valid he operation likely never aside "no reimbursement" determination. 614 reiterated 615 (quoting 761) (internal quotation marks omitted), adding "claim benefits" "claim," 622, "all aspects" "channeled" process, 614. Your Home Visiting Nurse Services, 525 449, 456 (1999); Califano Sanders, 430 99, 103 104, n. (1977). 31 remedies," see 757 event Abbott Laboratories Gardner, 387 136, 148 149 (1967) (ripeness); McKart 395 185, 193 196 (1969) (exhaustion). Indeed, very several respondent's ripe remanded ripeness remainder. F.3d, 1077 1078. Doctrines contain exceptions, permit early when, "fit" resolution delay means Laboratories, 149, exhaustion prove "futile," McCarthy Madigan, 503 140, 147 (1992); McKart, 197 201. (And sometimes expressly authorizes pre-enforcement 2618(a)(1)(A) (Toxic Substances Control Act).) Insofar prevents insofar "channeling" attacks agency, price, namely, hardship. Medicare, embodied hundreds pages thousands often interrelated become courts, seem justified. event, 627; 33 Despite urging supporting amici, Claims money, benefits, eligibility, similarly fact-related circumstances, dispute policy determinations, application, interpretation, provisions. There among terms 1395ii's blanket incorporation whole certainly contains reasons "amounts." 34 cites efforts Ringer: 479 (1991), 319 (1976). "a procedure employed making decisions" " 'determination respecting adjustment status' Special Agricultural Workers' program. 491 498. Center's outcome, turned suggested "arising led conclusion. 494 (using example precluding 'all causes of' statutes). 35 authorizing payments pretermination 326 332. followed §405(g), thereby complying disregarding, strictures 327 (holding §405(g)). characterized raised excuse, own, 766 767, (but all) procedural steps 329 332 (identifying collateral irreparable injury excuse requirements); City New York, 467, 483 485 (1986) (noting factors mechanically applied). nonetheless 622; 329; 763 764. thus establish 36 win. precedent-based IV 37 "1395ii therefore §405(h)" 1075 1076. agree. governed voluntary supplementary insurance, doctors' fees. 674 675; Erika, 201, 202 203 (1982). allowed "eligibility" 1395ff(b) (1)(B) (1982 ed.). required private insurance carriers (administering program) "fair hearing" disputes §1395u(b)(3)(C). 38 first discussed "challenges mounted amounts determined." 675. meant although forms say §1331. 678. Cf. 208 explicit reference carrier hearings further determinations"). 39 methodology. Noting Salfi/Ringer-based respondents' counter-argument "methods" available, 679, wrote: 40 "Whichever better reading own mutatis mutandis §1395ii. history establishing 1972 amendments thereto specific evidence Congress' intent 'amount determinations' [matters] remitted exclusively adjudication 'fair hearing.' By token, matters delegate carriers, instructions cognizable law." 680 (footnote omitted). instances plaintiff, invoking §1331, an"amount determination." said "not abstract." Instead focused cross-referencing "applicable" "mutatis mutandis," "[a]ll necessary changes having made." Black's Law Dictionary 1039 (7th 1999). applied §1395ii important change detail produced cases, "methodology" challenges, mean 'serious question' arise construed forum B." 681, 762 (citing Johnson Robison, 415 361, 366 367 (1974))). More that: correct believing determinations," affected well. accordingly precedents, involved, respectively, programs. would, moreover, 10. understand why Congress, believes, post, (dissenting opinion), wanted compel patients, providers, their Brief Respondent 21, (apparently conceding point). silentio. agree instance. Servs., 501; Dermatology, 1501; 812; Farkas, 861; Abbey, F.2d, 44; Assn., 1134. Thomas maintains "must established," way new critical about, promulgate i.e, deny. Post, opinion). He respect mistaken Academy's "reasoning" (the presumption preclusion review) "holding." 9. And, finds because, says, everyone assumed §1395ii's fully For thing, points "Congres[s] inten[ded] "matters regulations," refers "private carriers" "foreclosure" quite obviously taken refer explained, requirement, foreclosure anything else. short, difficult reconcile Thomas' characterization "trigger[ed]" 9, points. 45 Regardless, plausible Scalia's suggestion, single much B. virtues consistency actual language; Ringer; drawn postponement (distinguishing complete 373); Thunder Basin Coal Co. Reich, 510 200, 207, (1994) (strong implicated postponing review); 496 499 finding precluded meaningful review). "antichanneling" (a "presumption favor preenforcement review," 16). far weaker light traditional doctrine, requires initial 10, well concluded universal obligation produce speedier, better, overall. crossed bridge long ago insisted matter reconsider longstanding interpretation. V 46 creates, there, action. words, contends portion "practical review." 497. convinced so. 47 agreement; usual involving remedy, withholding payments, penalty. 48 above, supra 5; [§405(b)] hearing." §1395cc(h)(1), whenever (b)(2)." agreement, with" statutes, "regulations." "determination" "some imposed." Reply Petitioners interprets §§498.3(b)(12), 498.1(a) (b)(1998). language, free ambiguity, bears aware countervailing argument. permissible. 843 (1984); 453; 1395i3h(2)(B)(ii) (providing imposing penalties.) 50 implemented agencies, insisting plan, threatening not. §§488.402(d), 488.456(b)(ii) risk adds, always avoiding simultaneously losing remedy-related §498.3(b)(12). amici assert, actually harms subjecting increased unreviewed deficiency findings, public Internet, §488.325. 51 conclusive answer contentions practice. She test refusing incurring minor Minor norm, "terminations rare reserved most egregious recidivist institutions." 18; ibid. (HHS reports 13,000 terminated 1995 1996). adds "remedy facility correction appeals ordinarily instance." "cause providers suffer severe penalties unreviewable." concedes posted notes post reply. 20, 20. 52 Contrary what 12, hold circumvent shows inconvenience cost isolated, whether, covered hardship turns appears Of course, mitigated way, excusing number step presentment 12; infra, again, shown potentially isolated inconveniences associated 53 complains host insulating level noncompliance one, another, §§431.153(b), 488.408(g)(2), 498.3(d)(10)(ii)(1998). prescribe, depends. 109 ("Constitutional questions unsuited "); 764; 45, beside point After channeled, consider contention reviews reviewing adequate cannot, decide, Coal, 215, 20; 494; 617; 762, including, necessary, develop evidentiary record. 54 Proceeding interpretations, challenges. waste time, waive deem waived 330 331, technically holds "hearing" claim. 767 sufficiency appellees' rendered decision" §405(g)); 331 332, (invoking conception finality potential delayed satisfy At minimum, presented prior done. 55 Finally, association, channel, "institution agency." §1395cc(h)(1). speaks member institutions, suffer. Arizonans Official English Arizona, 520 43, 65 (1997); Hunt Washington Apple Advertising Comm'n, 432 333, 343 essentially stake. VI 56 reasons, fit exception. applies. 57 Reversed. APPENDIX OPINION provides: 58 Dissatisfaction Secretary; institutions agencies; notice "(1) Except paragraph (2), institution services thereon (after reasonable notice) 405(b) title, sections 405(l) thereto, therein Commissioner Administration considered Department respectively." 60 1395cc(b) provides, part: 61 "(b) Termination nonrenewal agreements 62 63 "(2) refuse or, specified renew 64 "(A) subchapter thereunder, 1395ww(f)(2)(B) title." entitlement fact; hearings; investigations; reconsiderations terminations; subsequent applications 67 directed fact, subchapter. Any involves unfavorable understandable setting discussion evidence, stating Commissioner's based. Upon wife, divorced widow, mother, father, husband, widower, child, parent showing writing prejudiced rendered, give applicant decision, and, held, shall, adduced hearing, affirm, modify, reverse sixty days received request. authorized, motion, conduct investigations proceedings proper administration course investigation, proceeding, administer oaths affirmations, examine witnesses, evidence. Evidence inadmissible procedure. 68 69 "(3)(A) failure timely adverse reconsideration serve demonstrates applicant, referred (1), acting good faith reliance incorrect, incomplete, misleading information, relating consequences reapplying lieu determination, 421 title. 70 "(B) possible choosing reapply requesting 71 "(g) Judicial 72 "Any party, controversy, commenced mailing him allow. Such resides, principal place business, reside business district, Columbia. file certified copy transcript record including complained enter, pleadings record, affirming, modifying, reversing Security, remanding cause rehearing. supported substantial conclusive, denied claimant proof prescribed section, motion files answer, remand additional there material incorporate proceeding; remanded, ordered, affirm both, testimony modifying affirming reviewable manner actions. instituted accordance survive notwithstanding person occupying office vacancy office." 73 74 75 406 416(j) subsections (a), (d), (e), (h), (i), (j), (k), (l) 405 chapter, subchapter, 76 "Federal question. 77 dissenting. 78 I join lucid dissent qualification, think worthwhile identify significant like 442 (1975) (1984), hand, hand. former group, concerned plaintiffs' two, concerns providers' reimbursement. types issues mirrors 79 Disputed simple two-party Government. proceeding correctly 405(h). typically patient, provider, Secretary. When patient's fairly recover" parallel encompasses necessarily encompass 80 (and, my erroneously), treated patients' 620. plaintiffs patients. Their fall drafted pecuniary claims. via textual today. Moreover, "Pandora's box" rhetoric, ante, 14, adherence plain revisit cases. reason, nothing text should 81 82 III, add few explanation vote: am doubtful decided, books, believe affirmance view regard B, (since repeals implication disfavored) additionof judicial-review distantly altered authoritatively pronounced. 7, (Thomas, dissenting). 83 Thomas's calls suggests fortiori) decided. thought, matter, categorical overcame acknowledges stronger 14. With timing use word "presumption" term 136 (1967), preference point, 140) since unusually negation. background rule, displaced ("persuasive believe," it, ibid.) 84 whom Kennedy join, Scalia joins 85 Unlike majority, position force incorporating §405(h).1 triggered fact-bound dispute, "challeng[e] regulations." 680. Though any) entirely arguable tension our Accordingly, bringing 86 87 sought either address passing discussion) incorporates 88 Our 201 (1982), situation. dealt appropriate supplies.2 designated Secretary, authorized de novo carrier. 1395u ed.)). scheme mention possibility contrast, instances: concerning claimant's determinations 207 1395ff contrast illuminating: "In precisely omission persuasive deliberately intended [Part determinations]." 208.3 inference strong enough discuss Government's alternative 206, 6. occasion (So too interpret obvious reason: applicable.) 89 equally silent assuming operates garden variety §405(h),4 assumption shared Petitioner 18, 22, Respondents O. T. 1983, 1772. surgical 608 609, 4, unlike Erika (which B), §1395ff (via §405(g)) suffered chose follow Instead, attempted prohibiting surgery violating due process jurisdiction.5 noted, situation "No subchapter" Ringer's 616. 90 squarely addressed 1986 (1986). adopted physicians' services. family physicians doctors regulation. 668. These asserted concrete foreclosed Erika; 91 unanimous opinion6 rejecting impliedly methodologies determining amounts. 673. "precisely drawn" proposed inference, "simply d[id] speak 92 precludes resorting contended 756 "the grant contained 1331." 679. responded declined, debate: 93 i. e., 'quite matters,' Cong. Rec. 33992 (1972) (remarks Sen. Bennett), face intent, indulge contemplated 'trivial' ibid., program." (footnotes 94 95 quoted passage, Accord, 13. determinatio[n]" trigger jurisdiction; regulations" dichotomy translate exactly majority tells us, ed., III), sense resembles "amount" individual's §1395ff. Therefore, concludes, bear 15. 97 just §1395ff, amounts; applies, rather, entire §1395cc, "stron[g] construe formulation play." Ratzlaf 135, (1994). announced import methods guiding other. established between, particularized 680.7 triggers §405(h); category. mounts prescribing inspection teams survey 56116 (1994), comment, vague, contravene affording insufficient Like plaintiffs, services, 668, 99 Perhaps recognizing follows straightforwardly creatively recasts §405(h): "where 'methodology' all." Ante, confuses reasoning (more precisely, half reasoning) undoubtedly reality insulated 'strong prohibit review' executive action."8 681 Dunlop Bachowski, 560, 567 (1975)). placed least equal 680, whereas ibid.; "specific Secretary," 679 announcing "exception" majority. cf. 328 (1976) (describing 405(g)'s "final" sought), terms. 100 sure, adopt below, 1076 1998)), dictates recall, respondents claimants regarding parties) proceeded yet, gloss activated regulatio[n]." 680.9 thing analysis case; declare effected silentio overruling majority's representation, approach entails former, offend stare decisis would. (as done) functions reference, every "[t]he cas[e] anyone seen raise it. Questions merely lurk attention upon, decided constitute precedents." Webster Fall, 266 507, 511 (1925). also, Lopez Monterey County, 266, 281 (1999) ("[T]his bound assumptions"); L. Tucker Truck Lines, 344 33, (1952). overruled (sub otherwise) decide. "consistency Ringer." 16. does, engaged condemns (of supra). 102 criticism declaring itself, own. According aggrieved "can action." Consider Freeman proscribing type issue), present, possess financial up front await Nor, apparently, financing surgery. 620; 637, (Stevens, concurring part) ("Ringer [the] [to reimbursement]"); 42, 23. seems me paradigmatic [he] action," 17, qualify reaffirm toto, revising inability others afford pursue undergoing presenting 19. Setting peculiarity interpreting poor promise rich stead,10 ignores holding. attempt notion situated §1331; reasoned "essentially [a particular] surgery, §405(g)." 104 overstate foregoing invoke remaining resolved, canon "judicial 'will 105 cut off purpose Congress.' Gutierrez Martinez Lamagno, 515 417, (1995) 140 (1967)). (1991); Traynor Turnage, 535, 542 (1988); 670; 373 374 (1974); Stark Wickard, 321 288, 309 310 (1944). 106 rationale "presumption," straightforward enough: structure contemplates check disregard mandates Chief Marshall explained: 107 'It excite surprise if, government principle, furnished department duty right, individuals; ministerial might, discretion, powerful leaving claimant] country, unjust. anomaly exist; imputation cast legislature States.' Nourse, (1835) Martinez, 424). 108 S. R. Stewart, Sunstein, M. Spitzer, Regulatory Policy 832 (4th 1999) (suggesting owes source considerations accountability supremacy, ideas article I, considerations, clause"); 682, allow serious denied).11 32, favors "at point," now-or-later now-or-never, context. "important recent era access 831, Although Food, Drug, Cosmetic (FDCA) issued, indeed enumerated kinds explained indicia congressional viewed lens presumption: 110 [FDCA] forbid sort Commissioner. phrased 'prohibition' 'authorization' Congress." 139 140. 111 proceed. 148. 112 recently, reaffirmed applicability challenge. Service's (INS) administering amnesty illegal aliens. availability statutorily orders exclusion deportation, express prohibition INS "determination status [under program]," 1160(e)(1), suffice trump "strong 113 declines employ ambiguity instead, concocts "consisten[t] 762; 8; Regugee 499). teaches problem lacks review; postenforcement option voluntarily surrendering deportation availing deportation. 496. Only modest acknowledged distinguished) omitting readily Presentment accomplished near-costless act contrasted extremely burdensome facing aliens named lengthy postpone ordering disputed took leniently construing allowing "after bottom, then, demonstrate dates debate conflicting readings 114 available. Delayed regulated entity disobey costs "presenting" buckle comply, invalid. Seidenfeld, Playing Games Timing Review, Ohio J. 85, (1997). expect consequence flow ambiguous aliens' "postenforcement" asserting surrender appeals. presentment, "[q]uite tantamount undocumented aliens." 115 predicament faces represented contend respects. homes' delineated 1395cc(h)(1), "an referenced 1395cc(b)(2) III) doubt, afforded 'some imposed.' original)). Still, reading, team's assessment (for noncompliance) §1395cc(h). §1395cc(h) expose team, forbear until designees) remedy. 116 forbearance costly indeed, rational option. prospect failing deficiencies. 488.456(b)(1) terminations rarely postponed preserve leniency solely grace Tr. Oral Arg. little comfort pondering exposure faced forestalls accrue day noncompliance, §§488.430, 488.440(b) (1998), stand calibrated deterrent strategy. Ex parte Young, 209 123, (1908) ("[T]o interested burden obtaining condition unsuccessful imprisonment fines close approaches courts").12 strategy tangible, significant. unbalanced inaccurate data easily accessible 483.10(g)(1) disclosed public, 3(g)(5)(A), Care Finance Authority's Internet website, 20.13 negative publicity, occurs avail §1395cc(h), reputational harm. Gardner Toilet Goods 167, 172 ("Respondents note importance industry, fear disastrous impact announcement cosmetics seized 'adulterated' "). 117 recount allegations inform case-by-case motivate sense. inquiry accommodated "evaluate[s] fitness consideration." analysis: presumption, doctrine determine entertained. Thus, companion 148; 168; 158, suits ripe, 156; 170; 161. Reno Catholic 509 (1993) (similar). line mode analysis, concluding APA notice-and-comment vagueness 1077. claims,14 confident enjoys approach, prescribes threshold stage action"). variation harmless stringent prong presume exacting otherwise well-disguised facts case.15 superimposes persons Act.16 119 120 especially respectfully dissent. Notes 121 1. "shall Act]." 122 2. supplemental coverage eligible physician charges Individuals' routinely assigned 123 3. illustrates principle finely wrought implication. Fausto, 484 439, 452 Block Community Nutrition Institute, 340, 351 Switchmen Mediation Bd., 320 297, 305 306 (1943). 124 4. (1984) ("The sole avenue 'claim[s] under' Act" (alteration 125 5. asserted, avail, 1361 (mandamus) II) (judicial determinations). 617 618. 126 Then-Justice Rehnquist participate. Pub. 509, §9341(a)(1)(B), 2037. substantively deserves today ever has. 128 8. enjoy "virtu[e] language," part. explain text, track sets rationales My majority's, case's holding: "foreclose[s] determinations,' [not] 129 observation implies fail comprehend assertion (1975). force. post-Michigan 449 (1999), 130 attempts soften blow explaining "individual show concession cold arguably, 131 11. observed "reinforced" enacting (APA), "embodies 'suffering wrong adversely statute.' 702 (1964 132 mine operator ($5,000) payable 204, 218. But, apparently (Scalia, judgment). 133 represents, accepts, Association al. assert website accommodate comments, lists date corrected deficiency, Amici Curiae 18. 134 i, cross-petition 526 1067 (1999). 135 respect. told endured plaintiff," confronted "class" plaintiff. betrays misunderstanding relationship [in review] entertain permitted assessed according (inevitably) "super-hardship" test. two-step

Category: 8