# Bowen v. Massachusetts > Supreme Court of the United States · June 29, 1988 · 487 U.S. 879 URL: https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/9431456 ## Case - **Full name:** BOWEN, SECRETARY OF HEALTH AND HUMAN SERVICES, Et Al. v. MASSACHUSETTS - **Court:** Supreme Court of the United States - **Decided:** June 29, 1988 - **Citations:** 487 U.S. 879; 56 U.S.L.W. 4878; 108 S. Ct. 2722; 101 L. Ed. 2d 749; 1988 U.S. LEXIS 3029 - **Precedential status:** Published - **Opinion:** Concurrence by White - **Judges:** Stevens, Brennan, Marshall, Blackmun, O'Connor, White, Scalia, Rehnquist, Kennedy - **Cited by:** 1,225 later opinions in the Frix Law Library ## Citator (automated) - No negative treatment found by the automated citator. That is not the same as a confirmation that the case is good law; read the citing cases. - Full citator and citing cases: https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/9431456 ## How later opinions describe it (automated extraction) - explaining that “[w]hen Congress enacted the APA to provide a general authorization for review of agency action in the district courts, it did not intend that general grant of jurisdiction to duplicate the previously established special statutory procedures relating to specifi… - finding that the APA's sovereign immunity provision did not bar judicial review of a suit seeking to enforce Medicaid's reimbursement provisions because it "is not a suit seeking money in compensation for the damage sustained by the failure of the Federal Government to pay as … - holding that a district court could hear a claim for an injunction requiring the government to pay certain Medicaid reimbursements because it was "a suit seeking to enforce the statutory mandate itself, which happens to be one for the payment of money," and "not a suit seeking… - stating in dicta that “[o]ur cases have long recognized the distinction between an action at law for damages — which are intended to provide a victim with monetary compensation for an injury to his person, property, or reputation — and an equitable action for specific relief —… - holding that an order "reversing" an agency decision that disallowed a Medicaid reimbursement is "within the District Court's jurisdiction under § 702's waiver of sovereign immunity" because the order is not a "money judgment" even though "it is likely that the Government will… ## Opinion text Justice White, concurring in the judgment. The Court construes the District Court’s orders as not having entered a judgment for money damages within the meaning of 5 U. S. C. § 702 . I am prepared to accept that view of what the District Court did, although the Court of Appeals had a different view. The Court’s opinion, as I understand it, also concludes that the District Court, in the circumstances present here, would have had jurisdiction to entertain and expressly grant a prayer for a money judgment against the United States. I am unprepared to agree with this aspect of the opinion and hence concur only in the result the Court reaches with respect to the construction of § 702. *913 The Court is correct in holding that § 704 does not bar District Court review of the challenged orders, the reason being that the Claims Court could not entertain and grant the claims presented to and granted by the District Court. I thus agree with the result reached in Part III of the Court’s opinion. --- Source: Frix Law Library, https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/9431456. Public record. Not legal advice.