Allina Health Services v. Kathleen Sebelius

How courts have described this case

Verbatim parenthetical descriptions written by other courts when citing this decision. Ranked by citation-network relevance.

• holding that an announcement that the agency would “clarify” an existing policy did not suggest that the agency was “open to reconsidering existing policy”
• stating that “deficient notice is a fundamental flaw that almost always requires vacatur,” especially where it is not “too late to reverse course”
• observing that the “binary choice” could have a potential financial impact “in the hundreds of millions of dollars”
• noting that the fact “that the Medicare statute is similar to the APA hardly means it is identical”
• stating that vacatur is improper when it \would lead to disruptive consequences\
• stating that vacatur is improper when it “would lead to disruptive consequences”

Source: CourtListener parenthetical corpus (CC0).