Supreme Court of the United States, 1988

Bowen v. Kizer

Supreme Court of the United States · Decided March 23, 1988 · Kennedy

485 U.S. 386; 108 S. Ct. 1200; 99 L. Ed. 2d 402; 1988 U.S. LEXIS 1450; 56 U.S.L.W. 4275 (United States Reports)

Counsel

Deputy Solicitor General Merrill argued the cause for petitioner. With him on the briefs were Solicitor General Fried, Assistant Attorney General Willard, Deputy Solicitor General Lauber, Jerrold J. Ganzfried, and Richard Olderman., Ralph Johnson, Deputy Attorney General of California, argued the cause for respondents. With him on the brief were John K. Van de Kamp, Attorney General, and Evelyn R. Frank.*

Cases that cite this one

15 later published cases cite this decision.

American Library Association, Appellants/cross-Appellees v. William P. Barr, Attorney General of the United States, Appellees/cross-Appellants (D.C. Cir. 1992)
Coalition to End the Permanent Congress v. Marvin T. Runyon, Donald K. Anderson (D.C. Cir. 1992)
Cooper Technologies Co. v. Dudas (Fed. Cir. 2008)
Cascadia Wildlands Project v. United States Forest Service (District Court, D. Oregon 2005)
Willey v. Ives (District Court, D. Maine 1988)
Brown v. Wmata (District Court, District of Columbia 2020)
Lyons v. United States (United States Court of Federal Claims 2011)
Lewis v. Hotel & Restaurant Employees Union, Local 25 (D.C. 1999)
James S. Scott v. Iron Workers Local 118 (2d Cir. 1991)
Animal Legal Defense Fund v. Quigg (Fed. Cir. 1991)
Scott v. Iron Workers Local 118 (9th Cir. 1991)
Animal Legal Defense Fund v. Quigg (Fed. Cir. 1991)
Commonwealth of VA v. Reno (4th Cir. 1997)
State Of California, Department Of Health Services v. United States Department Of Health & Human Services (9th Cir. 1988)
California, Department of Health Services v. United States Department of Health & Human Services (9th Cir. 1988)

This list shows which later cases cite this one. It does not say how they treated it, and no review of that has been done. Not a substitute for Shepard’s or KeyCite — verify before relying.

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.

Case-law data current through December 31, 2025. Source: CourtListener bulk data.