Bowen v. KizerAnnotate this Case
485 U.S. 386 (1988)
U.S. Supreme Court
Bowen v. Kizer, 485 U.S. 386 (1988)
Argued November 10, 1987
Decided March 23, 1988
485 U.S. 386
Held: Petitioner's compliance with § 4106 of the Omnibus Budget Reconciliation Act of 1987, which required that he retroactively approve a California Medicaid plan amendment, petitioner's rejection of which is the subject of this action, has rendered the controversy moot. The Court of Appeals' judgment is vacated; and the case is remanded for dismissal of the cause.
781 F.2d 1421, vacated and remanded.
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, 484 U. S. 200, 484 U. S. 204 (1988); United States v. Munsingwear, Inc.,340 U. S. 36, 340 U. S. 39-40 (1950).
It is so ordered.
JUSTICE KENNEDY took no part in the consideration or decision of this case.
Official Supreme Court case law is only found in the print version of the United States Reports. Justia case law is provided for general informational purposes only, and may not reflect current legal developments, verdicts or settlements. We make no warranties or guarantees about the accuracy, completeness, or adequacy of the information contained on this site or information linked to from this site. Please check official sources.