Document ID: ./input/supremecourt_opinions/opinions/21pdf/21-954_7l48.pdf
Page Number: 24.0

Cite as:  597 U. S. ____ (2022) 

19 

Opinion of the Court 

matter] to DHS for further consideration.”  554 F. Supp. 3d, 
at 857. 

As we explained two Terms ago in Department of Home-
land  Security  v.  Regents  of  Univ.  of  Cal.,  591  U. S.  ___ 
(2020), upon finding that the grounds for agency action are 
inadequate, “a court may remand for the agency to do one 
of two things.”  Id., at ___ (slip op., at 13).  “First, the agency
can offer ‘a fuller explanation of the agency’s reasoning at 
the time of the agency action.’ ”  Ibid. (emphasis deleted).  If 
it chooses this route, “the agency may elaborate” on its ini-
tial reasons for taking the action, “but may not provide new 
ones.”  Id., at ___ (slip op., at 14).  Alternatively, “the agency
can ‘deal with the problem afresh’ by taking new agency ac-
tion.”  Ibid. (quoting SEC v. Chenery Corp., 332 U. S. 194, 
201  (1947)  (Chenery  II)).  “An  agency  taking  this  route  is 
not limited to its prior reasons.”  Regents, 591 U. S., at ___ 
(slip op., at 14).

Here, perhaps in light of this Court’s previous determina-
tion that the Government had “failed to show a likelihood 
of success on the claim that the [June 1 Memorandum] was 
not arbitrary and capricious,” 594 U. S. ___, the Secretary 
selected  the  second  option  from  Regents:  He  accepted  the
District Court’s vacatur and dealt with the problem afresh. 
The  October  29  Memoranda  made  that  clear  “by  its  own 
terms,” Regents, 591 U. S., at ___ (slip op., at 14), in which 
the Secretary stated: “I am hereby terminating MPP.  Ef-
fective  immediately,  I  hereby  supersede  and  rescind  the 
June  1  memorandum.”  App.  to  Pet.  for  Cert.  263a–264a.
And consistent with that approach, the October 29 Memo-
randa offered several “new reasons absent from” the June 1 
Memorandum,  Regents,  591  U. S.,  at  ___  (slip  op.,  at  14),
including  an  examination  of  the  “considerations  that  the 
District Court determined were insufficiently addressed in 
the June 1 memo,” App. to Pet. for Cert. 259a. 

The October 29 Memoranda were therefore final agency 
action for the same reasons that the June 1 Memorandum