BOWEN, SECRETARY OF HEALTH AND HUMAN SERVICES
v.
KIZER, DIRECTOR OF CALIFORNIA DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH SERVICES, ET AL.
AI-generated. These summaries, headnotes, and key points are machine-generated and may contain errors or omissions. Always verify against the full opinion text below. Not legal advice.
The Secretary of Health and Human Services challenged a Ninth Circuit decision that had invalidated the Secretary's rejection of a California Medicaid plan amendment on the grounds that an internal agency manual constituted a binding regulation and that the Deficit Reduction Act of 1984 required approval. Before the Supreme Court could decide the merits, Congress enacted legislation requiring the Secretary to approve the amendment retroactively, rendering the dispute moot. The Court vacated the Ninth Circuit's judgment and remanded with instructions to dismiss the case.
© FLexlaw, Inc. — AI-generated enrichments are proprietary. All rights reserved.
Per Curiam.
We granted the Secretary of Health and Human Services’ petition for certiorari, 479 U. S. 1083 (1987), in order to review the judgment of the Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit that the Secretary unlawfully rejected a California Medicaid plan amendment because an internal agency manual stating approval of the type of provision in question was a binding regulation, and because acceptance of the amendment was required by § 2373(c) of the Deficit Reduction Act of 1984, Pub. L. 98-369, 98 Stat. 1112, note following 42 U. S. C. § 1396a (1982 ed., Supp. III). Cubanski v. Heckler, 781 F. 2d 1421 (1986). After the case had been briefed and argued, Congress enacted § 4106 of the Omnibus Budget Reconciliation Act of 1987, Pub. L. 100-203, 101 Stat. 1330, which required the Secretary to approve the proposed California amendment, retroactively to the date of its proposal. The Secretary has complied with that requirement.
The parties agree that these developments have rendered the controversy moot. In accordance with our established practice, we vacate the judgment of the Ninth Circuit and remand with instructions to dismiss the suit. See Deakins v. Monaghan, 484 U. S. 193, 200, 204 (1988); United States v. Munsingwear, Inc., 340 U. S. 36, 39-40 (1950).
It is so ordered.
Justice Kennedy took no part in the consideration or decision of this case.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
Am. Library Ass'n v. Barr, 956 F.2d 1178 (D.C. Cir. 1992)…ay have been a constitutionally defective statute. Congress’ action represents responsible lawmaking, not manipulation of the judicial process. In these circumstances, our appellate duty under the rule of Mun-singwear is certain. See Bowen v. Kizer, 485 U.S. 386, 108 S.Ct. 1200, 99 L.Ed.2d 402 (1988) (per curiam); Clarke v. United States, 915 F. 2d 699, 707 (D.C.Cir.1990) (en banc). We therefore vacate the portion of the court’s judgment concerning the 1988 Act’s recordkeeping provisions and remand the ca…1 / 2
-
State of Cal. v. United States Dep't of Health & Human Servs., 853 F.2d 634 (9th Cir. 1988)…9, § 2373(c)(1), 98 Stat. 494, 1112 (1984). DEFRA clearly prohibits the Secretary from taking any regulatory action against a state. In Cubanski v. Heckler, 781 F. 2d 1421, 1429-30 (9th Cir.1986), vacated as moot sub nom. Bowen v. Kizer, — U.S. -, 108 S.Ct. 1200, 99 L.Ed.2d 402 (1988), this court held that the Secretary’s mere disapproval of a proposed Medicaid plan amendment also violated the DEFRA moratorium. State of Washington v. Bowen, 815 F. 2d 549, 555-56 (9th Cir.1987) followed Cubanski to hold that…
-
Animal Legal Def. Fund v. Quigg, 932 F.2d 920 (Fed. Cir. 1991)…Ct.Cl. 617 (1978). A rule is “substantive” when it “effects a change in existing law or policy” which “affectfs] individual rights and obligations.” Cubanski v. Heckler, 781 F. 2d 1421, 1426 (9th Cir.1986) vacated as moot, sub nom. Bowen v. Kizer, 485 U.S. 386, 108 S.Ct. 1200, 99 L.Ed.2d 402 (1988); see also Chrysler Corp. v. Brown, 441 U.S. 281, 302, 99 S.Ct. 1705, 1717, 60 L.Ed.2d 208 (1979) (“affecting individuals’ existing rights and obligations”); Gosman, 573 F. 2d at 39 (change existing law or polic…1 / 2
Previewing 3 of 5 citing cases — full citator treatment, depth of discussion, and citing context are member features.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceAuthorities Cited
- United States v. Munsingwear, Inc., 340 U.S. 36 (U.S. 1950)
- Deakins v. Monaghan, 484 U.S. 193 (U.S. 1988)
- Cubanski v. Heckler, 781 F.2d 1421 (9th Cir. 1986)
- Forrester v. White, 479 U.S. 1083 (U.S. 1987)
- Basic Inc. v. Levinson, 479 U.S. 1083 (U.S. 1987)