Shalala v. Illinois Council on Long Term Care, Inc — Thomas, J…

Summary

Justice Thomas, dissenting, would have held that the Medicare Act's incorporation of the Social Security Act's jurisdictional restriction does not bar a provider's preenforcement challenge to the Secretary's regulations and manuals under general federal-question jurisdiction. He read the controlling precedent as distinguishing challenges to particular benefit determinations, which are channeled through the administrative process, from general challenges to the validity of agency instructions and regulations. He also would have resolved any statutory ambiguity in favor of preenforcement judicial review, leaving ripeness to be assessed separately. Justice Stevens joined Thomas's dissent and emphasized the distinction between patients' claims for benefits and providers' challenges to reimbursement regulations; Justice Scalia joined except as to Part III and would affirm on statutory-interpretation grounds without relying on a presumption favoring preenforcement review.