Bowen v. Kizer
BOWEN, SECRETARY OF HEALTH AND HUMAN SERVICES v. KIZER, DIRECTOR OF CALIFORNIA DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH SERVICES, Et Al.
Opinion
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 Cir *387 cuit 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.
How later courts describe this case
Explanatory parentheticals written by citing courts — 4 in all; the most informative distinct ones are shown.
-
(Supreme Court vacated and remanded to Ninth Circuit, with instructions to dismiss, as Congress had enacted special legislation mooting controversy)
-
(Congress' enactment, after briefing and argument of the case, of law requiring Secretary of Health and Human Services to take action that was the subject of the dispute rendered the appeal moot)
-
(Congress has authority to moot pending controversy)
Cited by 13 cases
View all citing references →Relies on it most ⓘ
- Cooper Technologies Co. v. Dudas
- Willey v. Ives
- Cascadia Wildlands Project v. United States Forest Service
- American Library Association v. William P. Barr, Attorney General of the United States
- Lewis v. Hotel & Restaurant Employees Union, Local 25
- Coalition to End the Permanent Congress v. Marvin T. Runyon, Donald K. Anderson
Citing references are not a citator: they show that a later opinion cites this case, not whether it followed, distinguished, or overruled it. Check negative history before relying on this case.