Document ID: ./input/supremecourt_opinions/opinions/19pdf/18-587_5ifl.pdf
Page Number: 71

Cite as:  591 U. S. ____ (2020) 

5 

Opinion of KAVANAUGH, J. 

DACA.  Ante, at 14–16.  Under our precedents, however, the 
post hoc  justification  doctrine  merely  requires  that  courts 
assess  agency  action  based  on  the  official  explanations  of 
the agency decisionmakers, and not based on after-the-fact 
explanations advanced by agency lawyers during litigation 
(or  by  judges).    See,  e.g.,  State  Farm,  463  U. S.,  at  50 
(“courts may not accept appellate counsel’s post hoc ration-
alizations for agency action”); FPC v. Texaco Inc., 417 U. S. 
380, 397 (1974) (same); NLRB v. Metropolitan Life Ins. Co., 
380  U. S.  438,  443–444  (1965)  (same);  Burlington  Truck 
Lines, Inc. v. United States, 371 U. S. 156, 168–169 (1962) 
(same).  As the D. C. Circuit has explained, the post hoc jus-
tification  doctrine  “is  not  a  time  barrier  which  freezes  an 
agency’s  exercise  of  its  judgment  after  an  initial  decision 
has been made and bars it from further articulation of its 
reasoning.  It is a rule directed at reviewing courts which 
forbids  judges  to  uphold  agency  action  on  the  basis  of  ra-
tionales  offered  by  anyone  other  than  the  proper  deci-
sionmakers.”    Alpharma,  Inc.  v.  Leavitt,  460  F. 3d  1,  6 
(2006) (Garland, J.) (internal quotation marks omitted). 
  Indeed, the ordinary judicial remedy for an agency’s in-
sufficient explanation is to remand for further explanation 
by  the  relevant  agency  personnel.    It  would  make  little 
sense for a court to exclude official explanations by agency 
personnel such as a Cabinet Secretary simply because the 
explanations  are  purportedly  post hoc,  and  then  to  turn 
around and remand for further explanation by those same 
agency personnel.  Yet that is the upshot of the Court’s ap-
plication  of  the  post hoc  justification  doctrine  today.    The 
Court’s refusal to look at the Nielsen Memorandum seems 
particularly  mistaken,  moreover,  because  the  Nielsen 
Memorandum  shows  that  the  Department,  back  in  2018, 
considered the policy issues that the Court today says the 
Department did not consider.  Ante, at 20–26. 
  To be sure, cases such as Overton Park and Camp v. Pitts 
suggest that courts reviewing certain agency adjudications