Bowen v. Kizer

Supreme Court

Bowen v. Kizer

485 U.S. 386, 108 S. Ct. 1200, 99 L. Ed. 2d 402, 1988 U.S. LEXIS 1450, 56 U.S.L.W. 4275

CourtSupreme Court of the United States

DecidedMarch 23, 1988

Docket86-863

StatusPublished

Cited by17 cases

This text of 485 U.S. 386 (Bowen v. Kizer) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Supreme Court of the United States primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

Bowen v. Kizer, 485 U.S. 386, 108 S. Ct. 1200, 99 L. Ed. 2d 402, 1988 U.S. LEXIS 1450, 56 U.S.L.W. 4275 (1988).

Pincite

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.

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

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.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

485 U.S. 386, 108 S. Ct. 1200, 99 L. Ed. 2d 402, 1988 U.S. LEXIS 1450, 56 U.S.L.W. 4275, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/bowen-v-kizer-scotus-1988.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack